Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds To EU Antitrust Claims In Android Blog Post
An anonymous reader writes Earlier today the European Union released a Statement of Objection against Google, asserting that the search giant's dominance violating antitrust rules and Android products hindering equal opportunities for market access among its rivals. Google has now released an official blog post in response to the Commission's proposed investigation. Regarding its Android devices, Hiroshi Lockheimer, VP of Engineering at Android writes: "The European Commission has asked questions about our partner agreements. It's important to remember that these are voluntary—again, you can use Android without Google—but provide real benefits to Android users, developers and the broader ecosystem." He continues: "We are thankful for Android's success and we understand that with success comes scrutiny. But it's not just Google that has benefited from Android's success. The Android model has let manufacturers compete on their unique innovations [...] We look forward to discussing these issues in more detail with the European Commission over the months ahead."
Sure you can use Android without Google.
But even using "Keep" to make a list of groceries to buy requires you to sign in with your friggin Google ID..
...and the European commissioners want their cut increased, again. The preamble to negotiations have begun. This isn't new. Nothing to see here. The megamafia will have their way with the megacorps until the corporate court gets tired of it and rises to power, publicly.
Every time I read about this EU nonsense with Android, I think about Nokia and Symbian. Maybe the EU is chapped because all the good smart phone OSs are developed in the US?
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
"It's a shame, what's going to happen to Germany over the next few weeks."
#DeleteChrome
You can use Android without Google services. But being technically right isn't enough when it comes to antitrust. Google uses its position to make using Android without Google services increasingly more difficult. More and more essential features are moved from Android OSP to the proprietary Google apps package (or added there without first showing up in AOSP), and the OS makes no provisions to use other services as drop-in replacements (i.e. transparently to other apps). For example, almost all apps which provide location based services depend on the Google apps package for the simple task of showing locations on a map, even though there are several other map services which could do the same thing, but have no chance of getting the necessary OS integration.
On one side you have Android and Google people who will complain that Google is not doing anything wrong and have the right to lobby that is the case and on the other side you have the people like the gyro-copter letter carrier who think companies have no such rights and just shut up and accept whatever government regulations get placed on them.
In the connected world, being locked out of Google play services basically renders android useless.
, and I can assure you that you can use it fully without ever getting an app store account or providing any personal information to Apple.
maybe Google really is being more evil, and a Google monopoly really is a net loss for society.
they are not yet charging google for anything about android, considering the latest investigation took 5 years to make an charge we will see how in about that time how this comes about
now is it to google to show that they are not breaking any rules and that they can behave
> you can use Android without Google
No I can't.
Can I remove GMail, the calendar, maps, youtube from my phone? Nope.
Is it google's fault?
They are google's apps, they can put limitations on their usage/distribution. So in my eyes, yes.
Nice post, I enjoyed reading your blog. Keep up the work. This website http://coolgadgetscentral.com has something similar.
... its HQ isn't in Europe
Let's face it --- EU is jealous over the success of Google, and that Google happened to have its start in America and not France, or England, or Germany or Italy
... and no, I am not an American, and neither I am a citizen of any EU country either
... and no, I am not employed by, or in any way receiving any benefit from Google, or any of its subsidiaries and/or affiliates
The above is merely an opinion from a third party observer
I couldn't figure out why Google wasn't getting pissy AT ALL over Cyanogen forking and talking smack about them.. Now the other shoe has dropped: Cyanogen's fork (and the company's very existance) is Google's main anti-trust defense, at least at the OS level.
Now Google's ad business, that's a whole 'nother matter...
Google is moving more and more utilities to Play Services, which is not open source.
Play Services is not only about Google-related services, it is also about OAuth for instance.
Unknowing developers rely on Play Services, making their apps incompatible with pure-Android devices.
To solve this problem, an Open Source implementation of Google Play Services is being developed:
http://softwarerecs.stackexcha...
The Android issue is just a minor point in the EU's case, why doesn't Google talk about the fact that their search service pushes people over to their shopping service?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You have completely lost me
... but I got a smartphone recently - a Samsung Ace 3 with Android. My impression is that the concept has huge promise, but that it is set up to disappoint massively, because although it is so-called open-source, you are not likely to be set free from the tie-in. This particular phone comes without Google Play (and as Google say: 'if it isn't installed from the start, you are not supposed to have it'), and all I can find on Samsung's equivalent is ad- and spyware. I have a suspicion the same holds for Google Play, but I don't know. Even if you download Google Play from elsehwere, it will not be allowed to run - it gets killed instantly
Let's see ...
The phone you got is from Samsung
It runs Android
It does NOT have Google Play
And if you want to install Google Play in it, that Samsung phone somehow deletes it, instantly
Am I stating the facts correctly?
The phone's only tie with Google is the OS ( Android )
Fact 1. The Phone is not from Google
Fact 2. Google Play is not allowed to be installed in that phone
But of course, that's not all ...
You just goota bitch about the evilness of Google, even if you have to make it up
Regarding that fucking phone of yours, Google's role is limited to the Android OS, and nothing else
So what the fuck are you trying to prove?
That Google is evil? Just because Google supplies that Android OS that Samsung uses?
That Google is a monopoly? How can Google be a monopoly if Google Play isn't even allowed to be installed???
You got tard for in between your ears, or what?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Way back when, MS were under fire over whether or not the browser was part of the OS.
It seemed to be agreed that the "right" thing for MS to do was to make applications separate from the OS so that other applications running in Windows could compete on a level playing field.
It would be anticompetitive if MS mandated that
- a PC with Windows could only ship if someone bought Office too (this never to my knowledge happened)
- a PC manufacturer who wanted to benefit from OEM OS pricing could never sell a PC without paying for a Windows license (as I understand it, this DID happen).
Fast forward to Android. You can have AOSP, a bare OS. That is free and open.
Or if you choose to go that way, you can get a phone which also has on top of that Google's suite of apps. This includes the usual google ecosystem, and also a load of services which make life easy for lazy app developers.
It's a free market but phones without the google stuff don't sell so well. Turns out people WANT google search, google maps, gmail etc on their phones, because they use the ecosystem.
I'm one of them. I don't use gmail because they strongarmed me - I use it because it works for me.
Have done for years. The fact that all their services are stitched together really works and adds value.
And guess what - they show me ads. Which I can choose to ignore, More useful ads than most, at least they're relevant.
Amazon are free to build a different set of stuff on top of AOSP, of course. Whether their set if stuff is as much use as the google set of stuff I don't know. MS could in theory build a complete alternative on top of AOSP too.
Maybe they will do that instead of Windows Phone one day.
But this whole argument doesn't hinge on whether there are all these alternatives. It seems instead to revolve around how successful google are. If they had just not been as good at all this, and got 50% market share, who'd care ?
They ARE a monopoly. By most definitions. But that's not illegal in itself.
Do they engage in anticompetitive monopolistic behaviour ? They don't force anyone to buy anything.
It seems that the argument goes that because their search is no 1 and has become so powerful, this creates an extra legal responsibility on them not to use it in such a way that benefits themselves over their competitors. It may be true that dropping off page 1 of the search page is damaging to a business, such is the success of google, but does that mean google are doing something illegal ?
Not being stocked by Tesco is damaging to a teabag brand. Does that mean selling Tesco own brand teabags cheaper is anticompetitive ?
If gmail was a separate silo from google search and they choose to buy adwords against "email providers" search terms, would that be OK ?
If gmail chose to spend their own money to be no 1 in the adwords column, that'd be their choice, Would that be OK ? They'd still get flak.
There seems to be an implicit assumption among critics that other google territories get free adwords but I'm not actually sure they do.
I often type "maps" meaning "I want google maps" and yet google maps isn't no 1.
Even with signed in personalised search that should have learnt what I want by now.
Seems to me like they are bending over backwards to be fair.
What is more telling to me is that google regard Amazon as their main competitor in search. if you want to buy something, and you search in Amazon, no other vendor gets a look in, regardless of their google rankings.
So as a small company trying to sell soccer boots (for example) my top 2 choices for hitting the big time are
a) sell through Amazon
b) optimise for google search.
As a vendor, which of those do you think gives me more control ? Is either of them free ?
What shady deal do I have to pull to get top rankings in Amazon ?
So are Amazon being anticompetitive now too ?
A lot of the EU posturing is just plain stupid,
Spain decided google news shoul
I couldn't figure out why Google wasn't getting pissy AT ALL over Cyanogen forking and talking smack about them..
Much more basic: Ask your self, *WHAT* is google's business, what are they earning money from ?
They are not earning lots of money buy selling copies of Android.
Instead they earn money with their service: they probably earn a percentage of sales of apps on their store, and they earn tons of money through their data-mining/advertising.
So yet another fork of android doesn't mean less revenue for Google. It means yet another portable platform that will eventually log into maps.google.com, and ask about pizza, and earn them tons of money.
It's the same reason why google can at the same time support Firefox development (they pay them a good budget) and at the same develop their own browser.
That might sound weird. But it makes sens. Google isn't in the business of *selling* browsers. More browsers mean more people online eventually using their service, and thus means more indirect profits, no matter exactly were the browser came from, as long as it conforms sufficiently to standards (HTML5, etc.) and can use their service, and isn't completely married to a competitor service.
The only thing regarding to Android that would drive them mad a little bit, is if Microsoft decided to fork Android, and design a special fork that only exclusively works on Microsoft's services (Bing, Office 365, etc.).
Lukily for them, Microsoft did instead attempt to make such a microsoft-exclusive platform using their windows OS and we all know what kind of success they had with this.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It seems the EU has a blind eye for what Apple does. Which to me is more anti competitive then Google. But I think any of it is rubbish that the EU thinks every product Google or anyone else makes should be void of any supporting products by that maker. Does the EU really think people are so dumb they can't find apps they want, or change their search engine, or download another browser? The whole Microsoft litigation boggled my mind, and now this EU move makes that look small. I have no great admiration for Google, but I do see what Google is doing is anti anything. Of course you buy a Chromebook its going to have Google products on it, duh. Users most likely pick Google search the most because its been the go to search engine for how long? Does the EU not understand that maybe a product is dominant because people like it?
Android is widely used today. However, due to its tie in with Google, it hinders technology evolution like Windows did. The EU anti-trust case will certainly force Google to open up which will allow other people and companies to add to Android. It could even be fixed without Google. For example, things like the browser being firmware will then no longer be possible (even though Google recently found out that this is a stupid idea all by themselves).
Internet User: "You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision."
Google: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
How may web sites do you visit that DON'T have a link back to some form of Google? For example, my company's mail site hits a google.com address when you use the web mail interface. I am pretty sure that Outlook web mail was not created by Google. Being on Google's punish list is worse than being on their approved list.
This is quite early in a long process that, if followed, will result in a decision from the Commission which will set out its reasons in detail (and with reference to law) and dispose of Google's positions (accepting or rejecting them) with detailed reasoning. As long as that is done, Google is unlikely to find much support in a judicial review (and is likely to be hit with an adverse costs order as a result).
The Commission -- and Europe generally -- has a very different take on "nice" monopolies. Those are tolerated in the U.S. where there are no gross abuses of competitors and no gross harm done to consumers. Dominant parties -- monopolists, effectively -- are OK in the U.S. as long as they keep their prices broadly in line with what the much smaller parties offer. That avoids much litigation, which in U.S. courts is expensive to all parties and frequently results in surprises favouring the private company.
By contrast, Europe has been dismantling or heavily regulating even "nice" dominant parties, on the grounds that they *could* be abusive in rent seeking. No actual harm needs to be demonstrated to impose regulations (but it must be considered when assessing quantum in fines) so long as those regulations are in line with the law and are well reasoned with respect to allowing non-dominant players to compete. The Commission has broad powers to force revision of contracts, and will certainly look harshly at any scheme which makes it hard to switch from Google (or its partners or other customers) to another less-dominant player in the market on reasonable (and fairly short) notice.
There are plenty of industries which have had to make substantial changes to their business models as a result of Commission inquiries and decisions, including several of the markets in which Google is a large player. It's "Where's the Harm?" argument will not fly in Brussels, and is unlikely to heavily influence the observers from the U.S. that are likely to attend hearings. So they're probably just doing it to reassure their investors and to influence U.S. politicians, and try to add support to the "Do No Evil" marketing campaign.
Subject.^ It's one paragraph! I won't complain about comma splices. Just write it well enough that I don't have to go over a sentence three times and guess at what it *probably* meant.
Google's blog post reflects its core business: marketing. It's like reading a political party manifesto (and about as credible). The stand-out claim is, "you can use Android without Google". This is true. What they don't mention is that it's an all-or-nothing condition. You're either entirely in the Google camp or entirely out. You can't do both. Members of the "Open Handset Alliance" are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices.
Can you seriously imagine any manufacturer involved in Google market considering abandoning that to go it alone? The reality of the situation – as opposed to the rosy picture Google tries to paint in its response to the EU – is Google has the Android market locked down. Read this Ars article that compares them to the Godfather:
Interesting, the first comment opines that, "Google might want to rethink the path that they are going down. This could obviously lead to that nasty little thing called an anti-trust lawsuit." Indeed.
Its going to be funny when we look back at Google as just another AOL, a tech fad in this burgeoning internet age. "you mean you let that company have all of your social, telemtric, AND financial data, yeesh!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On not-Android operating systems, you can choose to deny a particular app access to a particular permission if you don't use features of that app that require access to that particular permission. For example, on iOS, you can deny an app access to your contacts without blocking the rest of the app from installing, and the App Store Review Guidelines state that the rest of an app must continue working without the permission. Android permissions commonly cited as useful to some but overly intrusive to others include "access network state" (be notified when Internet access comes back so that the app can sync data for offline use), "start after boot" (be notified when the device has been turned back on so that the app can sync data for offline use), and contacts (spell-check your friends' names). One could in theory ship a bare-bones app without these features and make separate helper service apps that just grant each of these permissions to the main app, but I'm told that would create a poor user experience.
They also, for youtubers with advertising, want to change the contract so they can refuse to let you have adverts for any other company unless they get a cut of that revenue.
This is on top of the cut they get already.
Google ARE fucking people over, just not in web searching, where the claims of Google being free of monopoly power is correct.
They do a shitload more than that, though.
You didn't have to use it...
Googleplus is a good example of how Google will fuck people over (just like Microsoft did with the Start Menu recently), and get away with it because some people didn't see a monopoly abuse.
Disagree all you like, but the courts will apply the law and you don't get to say whether they're allowed or not.
I have a bunch of Motorola MC40 handheld devices on my desk RIGHT NOW that have no ties whatsoever to Google services. It doesn't even have the Play store in the OS image. They work great and do exactly what I need them to do. Android OS allows me to configure and manage them through MDM. I still can get access to apk's of many popular apps that are served in the Play storeas well as the built in applications supplied by the hardware manufacturer. And this is not the only device in the market capable of doing this.
If HTC, Samsung, or any other manufacturer wants to make a phone without the app store, they can--Some do already.
Reading the complaint and then reading the Google response will make your head spin. Congratulations Google on a successful redirection of the issue, Android maintains a large percentage of the market share and oh by the way, we'll just slip in our services with it that pays us instead of the phone manufacturer. "But you get it all for 'free'", the cost of your free product is your privacy, your security, and your freedoms. They enter into agreements with manufacturers in order to install the OS which is "free" and then force a certain percentage of Google Applications in order to meet criteria to not meet a mass-distribution payment schedule. Then we're going to layer services within services, so you don't even see us selling to you. Congrats though, you got caught. Time to pay the piper.
Google's blog is spot on even if it won't mean anything in a court room. That blog is one of the best damage control via marketing I've seen.
I barely use Google products since I mostly live in MS world but I applaud their response to the EU.
a lot of apps (e.g. almost all mobile banking apps) are only available via Google Play
Which major bank's app isn't on Amazon?
I don't know if it's still in force, but there was a time when a single manufacturer wasn't allowed to ship both AOSP devices and Google Play devices.
You need to have a sufficiently large market share that your actions distort the market to be considered a problem.
I was under the impression that in the market for 4 to 5 inch tablets, the iPod touch had "a sufficiently large market share". Can you name any serious competitors in that size range that aren't either A. iOS based or B. intended for use with a cellular network?
And if you really don't want to be linked to Google yet do want online services, buy an iPhone or a Windows phone.
So what if I want to use services that aren't Google's, but I also want to be able to write my own programs for the device without having to pay the $99/year certificate tax to the publisher of the device's operating system?
So because Apple charges you $99/year, Google is a monopoly that needs to be punished by the EU?
Google, the company that actually makes its OS available open source and that you can install as Cyanogen? Google, the company that actually lets you install your apps on your device for free? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
Google, the company that actually makes its OS available open source and that you can install as Cyanogen?
I agree. The proper target of bitching is not Google as much as hardware makers who intentionally make it hard to switch to CyanogenMod.
Several mobile banking apps have a feature to let an account holder deposit a cheque by photographing the front and back sides. As far as I can tell, cheque deposit is the only major feature of a mobile banking app that can't be done just as easily on the bank's website. So if you don't need this feature, you can just bank in Firefox.
Hmm, this sounds like a US bank thing (cheques are pretty much gone this side of the pond). The main feature of the app is that it can be the second factor in two-factor authentication for the web-based banking, so you don't have to carry around the chip reader device. It's also a bit more convenient for quickly paying someone that you've paid before or checking your balance on the go.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The main feature of the app is that it can be the second factor in two-factor authentication for the web-based banking, so you don't have to carry around the chip reader device.
Web banking uses a cookie in your browser as the second factor, and this factor is planted through an incoming voice or SMS message to a number that you control.
It's also a bit more convenient for quickly paying someone that you've paid before or checking your balance on the go.
I routinely use web banking for both of these use cases.