Europe Is Going After Google For Anti-Competitive Behavior With Android

Google now faces more competition charges in the European Union. The EU has accused Google of skewing the market against competitors with its Android mobile operating system. The 28-member state bloc's antitrust commissioner concluded in a preliminary decision that the search giant has abused its dominant position in the market by imposing restrictions on Android device makers. "What we found is that Google pursues an overall strategy on mobile devices to protect and expand its dominant position in internet search," said Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition chief. "The commission is concerned that Google's behaviour has harmed consumers by restricting competition and innovation," she added. "Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good." Google has three months to respond to the aforementioned charges. The New York Times reports: Europe's antitrust charges might not necessarily lead to financial or other penalties against Google. If it is found to have broken the region's rules, though, the company may face fines of up to 10 percent of its global revenue, or roughly $7 billion, the maximum allowable amount. Google denies that it has broken European competition rules, saying that its dealings with cellphone manufacturers like Samsung and HTC, among others, are voluntary, and that rival mobile services are readily available on its Android software.According to EU, Google has breached antitrust rules by:1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; 2. preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code; 3. giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices."The joke in Google's cafeteria today will be "let them use bing," said Andrew Parker, VC. "So disappointing that browser dominance on Android is the only thing that the EU can get worked up about," Blaine Cook, co-founder of Poetica noted. "The European Commission's statement of objections against Android lends further credibility to Oracle's $9B copyright claim," Florian Mueller, the founder of FOSS Patents blog wrote.

Comments

Haters gonna hate

[colinrichardday]

Well, haters gonna hate.

Ironic

[danbob999]

Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

He said manufacturers/carriers, not users. I never saw a device where even the user couldn't change the search engine.

Re:Ironic

[ooloorie]

Which part of "allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser" did you not understand?

Users on Android can change both the search engine and the browser if they like.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Re:Ironic

[Bing Tsher E]

I had to replace the whole launcher on my Moto E android phone to get rid of the 'Google Search Bar' hogging a huge amount of screen real estate.

Obviously, it's true that an Android phone is the only kind of the three where you can replace the whole launcher that way, but it was frustrating trying to figure out other ways to turn off the screen real estate hog and also the privacy compromising 'Okay Google' 24/7 monitoring of my microphone for voice recognition searches.

Re: Ironic

[WarJolt]

They used to sell tablets not preloaded with Google apps. No one bought them. Fortunately it was trivial to install them, but users prefer to have a consistent ecosystem.

They should sue Apple for not allowing you to remove and replace the App store. This is a choice for android.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you put out this lie? IOS, Android and Win Mobile, allow for default search engine changes.

Re:Ironic

[thegarbz]

That's funny. I had to replace the whole launcher to add it. Samsung doesn't ship with it by default and the Touchwiz launcher fire's up Samsungs stupid magazine on the left screen instead of Google Now.

What you're complaining about was not an Android problem, in fact it is an example of how little value this antitrust investigation has.

Re:Ironic

[MrLint]

Frankly I dont give a rats ass what phone manufacturers/carriers feel about this. They have already wasted huge amount of customers time and effort putting in unremovable trashware over the years. Let the damned end users have the choice.

Re: Ironic

[tlhIngan]

They used to sell tablets not preloaded with Google apps. No one bought them. Fortunately it was trivial to install them, but users prefer to have a consistent ecosystem.

They should sue Apple for not allowing you to remove and replace the App store. This is a choice for android.

Actually, the problem with Google is not the search engine. It's the Play store. Like you said, Android devices without it don't sell. But if you want it, then you have to obey some rather onerous terms. Like you must include ALL the Google apps. And they must be default - doesn't matter if you want to use HERE maps or other map service - the Google Maps must be the default. Also, all Google apps must be one click away from the home screen by default (that's why there's a Google Apps folder on the home screen).

Samsung is probably closest to being able to get rid of Google's apps because they've developed alternatives to every application Google has. But because they still license Google Play, they must include all of Google's apps by default. It's why Samsung phones seem to have duplicates.

That's the real problem - iOS is pretty safe since it's Apple-only, and it's hard to argue that Apple's in a monopoly position when 4 Androids with Google are sold for every iOS.

It's the fact that you can't unbundle the Google apps, or phone developers can't replace it with their own by default, if you want Play, you have to agree to those terms.

Re:Ironic

[ooloorie]

Let the damned end users have the choice.

You mean like this?

Re:Ironic

[PRMan]

OMG, it was so hard to remove the magazine by holding it down for 1 second and trashing it. I think I'll install a different launcher because that's too hard!

Re:Ironic

[PRMan]

Carriers/Manufacturers (reading comprehension is a lost art)

Re:Ironic

[acoustix]

Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.

False. BBOS and BB10 have allowed the carriers to change the default search engine for several years - even before Android was around.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless all those options are available from the factory, no, not like that.

Re:Ironic

[Anubis IV]

Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.

Is that so? I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to back that claim up by naming a single mobile OS that prevents manufacturers from changing the default. After all, the point is moot with most of the other OSes (e.g. iOS, Windows), simply because the companies behind them do their own manufacturing. The thing that's notable about Android is that it's the only major OS for which that (mostly) isn't the case, which is also why your statement has the ring of truth to it at first glance, even though it's factually incorrect.

Moreover, inasmuch as what you've said is true with regard to carriers, that's NOT a good thing, since allowing carriers to muck around with user-facing settings is not in the best interests of users. And for that matter, it doesn't work in Google's favor here, since by opening the option up and then paying carriers/manufacturers to exclude their competitors, they've opened themselves up to allegations of wrongdoing.

I don't know that it's enough to warrant an anti-competition investigation, but it certainly doesn't help their case.

Re:Ironic

[Anubis IV]

Carriers/Manufacturers (reading comprehension is a lost art)

He's actually correct, at least with regards to manufacturers. None of the OSes he listed prevent manufacturers from changing the default settings (of course, the point is rather moot, since those OSes were developed by their manufacturers). As for carriers, why is that being bragged about as if it were a good thing? Carriers have no business changing default values for user-facing settings.

Re:Ironic

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Actually, iOS's default search engine can be chosen by the manufacturer as well. ;)

Re: Ironic

[c]

It's the Play store. Like you said, Android devices without it don't sell. But if you want it, then you have to obey some rather onerous terms. Like you must include ALL the Google apps.

I think Google could maybe resolve this particular issue if they offered a Play-only option for, say, $20 per shipped phone, without being allowed to install the rest of the gapps by default (i.e. the user would have to install their favorite Google apps one-by-one).

Re:Ironic

[danbob999]

Is that so? I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to back that claim up by naming a single mobile OS that prevents manufacturers from changing the default. After all, the point is moot with most of the other OSes (e.g. iOS, Windows), simply because the companies behind them do their own manufacturing.

Some Windows Phone manufacturers aren't Microsoft/Nokia. They are forced to use Bing and IE.

And for that matter, it doesn't work in Google's favor here, since by opening the option up and then paying carriers/manufacturers to exclude their competitors, they've opened themselves up to allegations of wrongdoing.

I don't know that it's enough to warrant an anti-competition investigation, but it certainly doesn't help their case.

it would have been even worse if Google locked-down Android and forced everyone to use their search engine and browser.
The only reason Apple has a free pass for doing so is because they have little market share (~13%).

Re:Ironic

[danbob999]

You would have had a point 10-15 years ago, when Blackberry was still relevant.

Re:Ironic

[danbob999]

No matter if it is a good thing or not, it's an opening from Google to competition, and should please the EU.

Re:Ironic

[Anubis IV]

Some Windows Phone manufacturers aren't Microsoft/Nokia. They are forced to use Bing and IE.

I know that used to be the case, but I didn't think anyone else was selling new Windows phones at this point. Other than Nokia, HTC was the biggest manufacturer I was aware of, but they only appear to be selling their old stock of Windows 8.1 phones at this point. I checked a few other manufacturers and didn't see any available. But if I'm wrong, I'll accept any correction and acknowledge my error.

it would have been even worse if Google locked-down Android and forced everyone to use their search engine and browser.
The only reason Apple has a free pass for doing so is because they have little market share (~13%).

Not so. With the exception of government-granted monopolies, it's rare that companies have an obligation to grant competitors access to their platform. Somewhat perversely, if they choose to open their product (i.e. permit competition by allowing people to pick-and-choose components in a piecemeal fashion), it opens the company up to additional opportunities for being accused of anti-competition, since they have an obligation to play by the same rules as everyone else in each of those broken-out product categories. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, so it's something that companies need to weigh carefully.

Had Android remained locked-down as a single take-it-or-leave-it product, it would be a singular OS product that competed against other OS products. A locked-down OS would be significantly less appealing to manufacturers like Samsung, HTC, or LG, and it's likely Android would not have seen the success it's had. But that absolutely is a legal option available to Google. Again, there's nothing illegal about selling a locked-down product, regardless of your market share, otherwise you'd see things like Facebook, Google Search, Windows, etc. being compelled to provide full, public APIs to access every single component of their platforms. Clearly, that isn't happening.

Instead, by opening it up, Google voluntarily broke its components out into separate OS, search, browser, and service products. That created a set of competitive markets that allowed the Android ecosystem to thrive and dominate, but it also came with the responsibility to compete on even terms in each of those product categories. That means no strong-arming third-parties by telling them they can't have Google's services unless they include the unrelated search and browser products to the exclusion of Google's competition, which is what they were apparently doing here. It's fine to sell a group of your products as a package (e.g. ESPN is only available if purchased with other Disney-owned channels), but it's not fine to make deals that lock-out competition on an open platform (i.e. Disney can't say, "If you want ABC, you have to dump NBC and CBS").

Again, it's somewhat perverse that the very act of opening your platform up to additional forms of competition is what creates additional opportunities to be accused of anti-competition, but it's a choice they made that came with a number of major benefits and a number of drawbacks. This is one of the latter.

Re:Ironic

[danbob999]

I disagree with most of your post.

Not so. With the exception of government-granted monopolies, it's rare that companies have an obligation to grant competitors access to their platform. [...] Again, there's nothing illegal about selling a locked-down product, regardless of your market share, otherwise you'd see things like Facebook, Google Search, Windows, etc. being compelled to provide full, public APIs to access every single component of their platforms. Clearly, that isn't happening.

Well Microsoft has been accused under anti-trust laws in both US and EU (forcing IE, Windows Media Player, Office XML formats). Google had some trouble with search too in Europe. Facebook could well be next one day if they abuse their domination in the social networking market to force an other product.
It's illegal to abuse a monopoly position. If EU consider that Google is abusing by forcing Google Search into Android, no matter if it's open or not, they can sue.

So in short, I disagree that Google is in that position because of Android being open.

Re: Ironic

[AuMatar]

That price is likely too high, but yes they could. They don't want to though- they want to leverage their monopoly in the Android app store category to monopoly on mapping and other apps (although their maps app is actually more than good enough to stand on its own, their email apps suck).

You actually could write your own app store- the difficulty is getting devs to use it.

Re:Ironic

[Bing Tsher E]

That doesn't work on my phone. Maybe you have a phone with a different launcher.

Re:Ironic

[thegarbz]

Erm no. There was no replacing it. Much like holding down the home key activates S-Voice without the ability to disable the feature. If there was the ability to get rid of it they put enough effort into making it counter-intuitive enough that at least one person (me) found it easier simply to install a different home-screen.

Re:Ironic

[Anubis IV]

I disagree with most of your post.

Then, in all sincerity I would like to say: thank you for taking the time to respond. Seriously! I appreciate thoughtful replies from people who disagree, since those are some of my favorites, simply because they force me to reconsider my own views, their weaknesses, and their accuracy (or lack thereof, as the case may be). I know it's easier to just ignore posts that you disagree with, so I appreciate when people do otherwise.

Well Microsoft has been accused under anti-trust laws in both US and EU (forcing IE, Windows Media Player, Office XML formats).

You and I both agree that it's illegal to abuse a monopoly position, which we'd agree Microsoft was accused of doing in all three of those situations. Where we would differ is in the nature of that abuse, it seems.

At the great risk of constructing a straw man (and I do apologize if I am), I believe you'd suggest that when it comes to monopolies, it doesn't matter how competition is prevented, just that it is prevented, so regardless of whether Microsoft disallowed third-party apps entirely on Windows or gave themselves an unfair advantage while allowing apps, they'd be in the wrong either way. That would explain why Apple isn't being investigated for iOS (since they don't have a monopoly) and why it's better that Google opened Android (since it means avoiding illegalities).

I'd disagree, of course. I'd suggest that it has less to do with monopoly positions and more to do with the how.

For instance, how would you reconcile the government going after companies that don't have a monopoly position? In the case of Apple, despite having less than 10% of the e-book market, they were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for engaging in anticompetitive behavior by colluding to price-fix the market. Likewise, despite not having a monopoly position, Intel recently settled with the government after they paid PC manufacturers to drop AMD products. Anticompetitive behavior goes beyond merely abusing a monopoly.

Likewise, how would you reconcile the government not going after monopolies who have failed to open their platform to outsiders? Google Search may have been investigated, but it mostly certainly was not because they've failed to open their platform up to results from Bing and Yahoo. Likewise, Facebook may get investigated, but you don't hear regulators suggesting they have a responsibility to show content from G+.

The distinction I'd draw, and which I believe is supported by the evidence, is that you don't have an obligation to sell your products piecemeal, but that if you choose to do so, you have an obligation to not use your dominant position with one of those pieces to gain an unfair advantage with the others. In the case of a platform, that means that if you keep it closed, you can do whatever you want, but the moment you open it up, you need to play by the same rules as the ones who build on top of it. Which is also why I wouldn't be surprised if Apple finds itself in hot water at some point for some of their practices related to the App Store (e.g. their use of private APIs that third-parties can't use, developer terms that have been used to limit competition with first-party apps, etc.).

Re: Ironic

[R3d M3rcury]

And they must be default - doesn't matter if the vendor wants you to use HERE maps or other map service - the Google Maps must be the default.

FTFY.

If you want to use some other map service, you can change the default. The problem, as you say, is that the default must be Google. In manufacturers want to sign their own deals with other map services, TFB.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way. I'm just clarifying that it's not like iOS where it is incredibly inconvenient to use a different map service/application. With Google's Android, you can change the default service. But you have to change it from Google.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari is the only browser allowed on iOS

Re:Ironic

[danbob999]

In the case of Apple, despite having less than 10% of the e-book market, they were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for engaging in anticompetitive behavior by colluding to price-fix the market.

I agree there are various anticompetitive practices which are illegal but aren't caused by an abuse of monopoly position. It's the case in your Apple example, and it's also the case when all gas stations from a small town fix the price (cartel).

Likewise, despite not having a monopoly position, Intel recently settled with the government after they paid PC manufacturers to drop AMD products.

Intel does have a dominant position, with what, 80% of the PC market? They were clearly abusing their position. AMD couldn't convince PC makers to drop Intel, even if they offered the same amount of money, because they are not in such a position.

The distinction I'd draw, and which I believe is supported by the evidence, is that you don't have an obligation to sell your products piecemeal, but that if you choose to do so, you have an obligation to not use your dominant position with one of those pieces to gain an unfair advantage with the others.

Microsoft didn't "sell" Internet Explorer, it was built-in to Windows, just as you suggest. Apple is doing the same with Safari and never had any trouble. Why? The only difference I see is that Apple isn't in a monopoly position.
IE was even deeply rooted into the operating system (used as the file browser). Regulators didn't care. It was an abuse of monopoly position.
I also read that Microsoft didn't include a PDF creator (and even a reader) for years into Windows in order to avoid being accused of abuse by Adobe.

Re: Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the problem with Google is not the search engine. It's the Play store. Like you said, Android devices without it don't sell.

Go tell Amazon.

Re: Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to my HTC.. which uses HTC's calendar, messaging, calculator, clock, etc. and don't have the Google versions installed. I've had to go install them myself.

Re: Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

While they're at at it they should force removal of Google Play and like wise App Store for Apple. Plenty of more relevant things to go after them.

Re: Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks god APPLE has no such draconian restrictions.

Not just search

[NotInHere]

Its also market, maps, calendar, etc. Gapps include so many services, many of them made in a way that the app developer has to choose between google proprietary and competitors. If some startup proclaims to compete with google, they usually get bought up, and don't continue to offer their services.

Vote Leave

[polyp2000]

F**k Europe.

Re:Vote Leave

[NotInHere]

You know if the brits leave the EU, that's a good thing. They were the major stopgap hindering to get real work done against the banks in the late 00's banking crisis.

Re:Vote Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

You really like to have a single monopoly dominate your life, don't you?

Re:Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

You know if the brits leave the EU, that's a good thing.

It's a great thing, both for Britain and the rest of the EU. In particular, the rest of the EU will have to learn to be more responsible, rather than relying on the UK to bail them out.

They were the major stopgap hindering to get real work done against the banks in the late 00's banking crisis.

You mean the banking crisis that was mostly created by government-run banks making loans based on political pressure?

Re:Vote Leave

[houghi]

Can't we make a deal? We push over the UK to the US and we get Canada in return. We are used to multi-lingual countries.

That way everybody will be happy.

Re:Vote Leave

[serviscope_minor]

Thing is all the pro-leave people seem bloody nuts and completely ignorant of the facts.

particular, the rest of the EU will have to learn to be more responsible, rather than relying on the UK to bail them out.

TIL UK == Germany.

You mean the banking crisis that was mostly created by government-run banks making loans based on political pressure?

What government run banks? They only became government run after going bust and getting bailed out.

Re:Vote Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the UK ever bail out the rest of the EU? You seem to be confusing the UK and Germany.

Re:Vote Leave

[jandersen]

You know if the brits leave the EU, that's a good thing. They were the major stopgap hindering to get real work done against the banks in the late 00's banking crisis.

Sadly, this may well be the case. To all those in UK who are for brexit because 'EU limits the sovereign power of Parliament': is that really such a bad thing, when you think about it? Would it really be sensible to put more power into the hands of the likes of Osbourne, Cameron, ...? And they are actually at the more decent end of the spectrum, as Tories go. EU has brought a lot of benefits to UK, quite apart from the economic gains.

Don't get me wrong - I am very much a Eurosceptic, as most sensible people would be, but I think even in its current configuration, it is still the right thing to stay in EU and work to change it from within. I don't buy into the 'passionate' arguments for or against, I have much more respect for level-headed reasoning and balanced views. So far in the debate, the leave side sound far more emotional in their arguments than the remain side - and especially Jeremy Corbin's pragmatic views ring true, exactly because he so clearly doesn't like EU much, but on balance has to concede that it is in fact better to stay in. That's how I feel, and I think a lot of people agree.

Re:Vote Leave

[prefec2]

I would definitely vote for that. However, in that case the UK will break up and a small portion will come back to us.

Re:Vote Leave

[AmiMoJo]

If we leave it will be an economic disaster for us, and in the long run give Europe a boost as e.g. Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.

On the other hand, we will lose control of our borders and immigration will become easier. Cameron's deal tries to tighten the rules on freedom of movement with spouses. If the UK leaves the EU will most likely ditch those changes, and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free trade system. The UK won't be able to make the rules stricter, and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.

Re:Vote Leave

[Bing Tsher E]

Would it really be sensible to put more power into the hands of the likes of Osbourne, Cameron, ...?

As opposed to the power going to arbitrarily appointed bureaucrats? Yes, definitely. Part of the point of a democratic government is allowing the people to make somewhat foolish choices in leadership, and then throw them out at the next election.

Re:Vote Leave

[NotInHere]

The EU has a parliament by the way. And it has even a mechanism for direct democratic voting. But I admit that it could be more legitimized by the peoples, yes.

Re:Vote Leave

[TheRaven64]

It's a good thing for the EU. It's a bad thing for us, as our authoritarian MPs will no longer be slapped down by the EU when they decide to go completely crazy.

Re:Vote Leave

[MightyMartian]

What I can't understand is why anyone takes that useless twat Muller seriously.

Re:Vote Leave

[Registered Coward v2]

Can't we make a deal? We push over the UK to the US and we get Canada in return. We are used to multi-lingual countries.

That way everybody will be happy.

Sorry, the UK tried twice to stay a pert of us and we turned them down. Canada might go for it since they turned down our generous attempt to get them to join us, but France might object to having to learn Canadian French, eh?

Re:Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

What government run banks? They only became government run after going bust and getting bailed out.

Many European banks are part government owned and have been for a long time.

Thing is all the pro-leave people seem bloody nuts and completely ignorant of the facts.

You mean like yourself?

Re:Vote Leave

[serviscope_minor]

Many European banks are part government owned and have been for a long time.

The british banks went bust just fine without government ownership, so I'm really not sure what the hell you're talking about.

You mean like yourself?

I see you chose not to dispute my dispute of your claim that the UK is Germany.

Re:Vote Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

It's understandable. The Germans have made the same mistake a few times themselves.

Re:Vote Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Now three guesses as to who has contributed greatly to exactly that state of affairs.

Re:Vote Leave

[AmiMoJo]

People argue that the EU is less democratic than the UK, but really it's just larger. For example, there is an elected chamber full of directly elected MEPs (the European Parliament), two other bodies (the Commission and the Council) who are made up of people selected by our elected representatives. So it's kinda like the House of Commons and House of Lords, one elected and the other appointed by the elected representatives, except that the Lords has >800 members and the EU bodies have a total of 28 each.

So when we don't get our way, that isn't a failure of democracy. That's just being out-voted. Quitting won't change that, it just means we will never have any say or influence instead of only be out-voted sometimes.

Re:Vote Leave

[MachineShedFred]

Delete the 'somewhat' from that last sentence and you are describing the United States Presidential Primary.

Re:Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

The british banks went bust just fine without government ownership, so I'm really not sure what the hell you're talking about.

I'm sure lots of private individuals, corporations, and independent banks suffered as the result of a crisis originally created by government policies.

I see you chose not to dispute my dispute of your claim that the UK is Germany.

I made no such claim. Are you off your meds and hallucinating again?

Re:Vote Leave

[gdr]

... Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.

I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.

... and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free trade system.

Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.

... and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.

But outside the EU we won't have free movement with the EU so we can set the level and type of immigration as we see fit. Cyprus will veto Turkish membership of the EU anyway.

Re:Vote Leave

[AmiMoJo]

England might go, but Scotland is likely to take independence and remain/rejoin the EU in that case, as well as possibly Wales. So you will need a big carving knife to divvy the UK up with first.

Re:Vote Leave

[serviscope_minor]

I'm sure lots of private individuals, corporations, and independent banks suffered as the result of a crisis originally created by government policies.

Ah so you've resorted to moving the goalposts. Well played. *clap* *clap*.

I made no such claim. Are you off your meds and hallucinating again?

I was being facetiouis. Go reag my reply and revel in the comment that you ignored because you know I'm right and you can't answer it.

Basically you're a typical Euroskeptic, when you come across an inconvenient fact, you either ignore it or move the goalposts. And this is why I think the leave campaign is full of shit because it is nothing but deflection, lies and wishful thinking.

Re:Vote Leave

[danbob999]

The UK won't be able to make the rules stricter, and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.

What are you talking about? The UK is pro Turkey within the EU, as is David Cameron.
The UK don't want the EU to succeed, therefore getting Turkey in the EU is the best way to achieve that and to slow down EU integration.

Re:Vote Leave

[AmiMoJo]

I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.

Not really. London had to start handling Euros, and we had to accept all the EU financial rules to stay competitive. The difference here is that if we don't accept the financial rules we will be unable to sell many of our financial services to EU countries, and one of the stated goals of leaving is to ditch those rules.

For an example of what it will be like, look at Switzerland and Canada. Either the bankers will riot as they lose access to the EU market, or the people will riot as we accept all the EU rules they wanted to be free of.

Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.

So does Canada. But it's not as free as trade between EU members. There are still some tariffs and they can't sell most financial services. The UK's financial sector is huge and does a great deal of business with the EU.

Re:Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

Ah so you've resorted to moving the goalposts. Well played. *clap* *clap*.

I'm afraid you moved the goalposts. I said that government-run banks were involved in creating the crises. You then responded that private banks needed to be bailed out. Of course, you probably don't understand the difference between the two statements, understandable given your educational background.

Basically you're a typical Euroskeptic

Actually, I'm quite the atypical Euroskeptic, because I actually voted with my feet.

And this is why I think the leave campaign is full of shit because it is nothing but deflection, lies and wishful thinking.

Frankly, whether the UK leaves or doesn't leave the EU makes little difference; Europe is so close, it will drag it down either way.

Re:Vote Leave

[Sesostris III]

Already planning our move to Scotland!

(Fortunately we've got loads of friends there, which will make the move easier).

Re:Vote Leave

[PRMan]

Reminds me of the old movie "Americanthon". "England, our 57th state..."

Re:Vote Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

... Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.

I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.

... and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free trade system.

Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.

... and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.

But outside the EU we won't have free movement with the EU so we can set the level and type of immigration as we see fit. Cyprus will veto Turkish membership of the EU anyway.

You say this but I work in investment banking and, along with others in my team, am currently being relocated from london to frankfurt. It may not happen quickly, but slowly and steadily banks can move their european operations to frankfurt. I know its a hell of a lot cheaper and i'm sure that if the uk leaves the EU will surely manage a couple of anti-london regulations to sweeten the pot.

It's worth considering that a lot of London's strength comes from its high concentration of skilled people in the city, hiring like for like in frankfurt is pretty much impossible (difficult in singapore also), but immigrating to London for high skilled non-EU nationals has become very difficult in the last 7 years (due to rules changes) and the property prices here have sky rocketed due to chronic under-building, add to that changes in dividends tax which make personal services companies less attractive (effectively lowering contractor rates in London vs higher taxing locations), and Germany's 3 year sweet-heart deal for foreign contractors and maybe all these things come together to make london a slightly less attractive a location. Albeit London is colossal a city its going to take a lot more than that to slow its momentum... but maybe say, leaving the EU? ugh i hate to think

It sure helps that Frankfurt's a much nicer city than London...but it can be, its tiny.

Also, the other half of my team are going to singapore, read into that what you will.

Re:Vote Leave

[gdr]

... but immigrating to London for high skilled non-EU nationals has become very difficult in the last 7 years (due to rules changes) ...

If the UK left the EU it could end unrestricted immigration from the EU and increase high skilled immigration from outside the EU by reversing those rule changes. One of the problems of EU membership is that we have unrestricted immigration of low skilled workers (when we have unskilled UK citizens that could do those jobs) which increases demand for housing, driving up house prices.

Re: Vote Leave

[cyber-vandal]

[citation most definitely needed]

Re:Vote Leave

[gdr]

Canada does have some tariffs on trade with the EU, Turkey doesn't. I believe all European countries except Belarus have tariff free trade with the EU even if they are not in the EU itself.

Re:Vote Leave

[serviscope_minor]

I'm afraid you moved the goalposts. I said that government-run banks were involved in creating the crises.

Not in the UK because they were privately owned. We bailed out our own banks. So it's a completely irrelevant point.

Re:Vote Leave

[Vasheron]

As a Canadian I would be happy with that arrangement :)

Re:Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but not all European banks are in the UK.

Re: Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

[citation most definitely needed]

It's not hard to see. For example, the biggest Greek lender is Germany, which has a tightly regulated banking system that is half government owned. And these loans were often made for political reasons, that is, to support German exports, help German companies, and create German union jobs. The banks didn't worry much because they can simply socialize the cost; that is, the German tax payer ultimately foots the bill no matter what, since these banks are guaranteed not to fail. It's similar in other countries. I suggest you check the numbers and ownership relations yourself.

Re: Vote Leave

[cyber-vandal]

So the banking crisis that began in the US with sub prime loans and credit default swaps was caused by German banks lending money to Greece? Let's try again. [Citation (not your conspiracy theories) needed]

Re:Vote Leave

[serviscope_minor]

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but not all European banks are in the UK.

And twisting and turning and moving the goalposts. Tell me, which government owned banks did the UK bail out?

Re: Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

So the banking crisis that began in the US with sub prime loans and credit default swaps was caused by German banks lending money to Greece?

There are several crises: the US financial "crisis" and its worldwide consequences, and the Eurozone "crisis". In the context of EU discussions, I was assuming NotInHere was referring to the latter.

The Eurozone crisis was caused by irresponsible lending with in Europe due to European government interference; that is, European governments pressured lenders to make loans to risky countries in order to spur export. The US financial crisis was caused by irresponsible lending within the US due to US government interference; that is, the US government pressured lenders to make loans to high risk customers in order to get home ownership rates up and satisfy activists. In their own words.

Re: Vote Leave

[cyber-vandal]

If he was talking about the sovereign debt crisis then I'm sure he would have used the words sovereign and debt instead of banking. What he's clearly referring to is the financial crash that started in the US and the efforts of George Osborn to prevent a Europe-wide cap on bonuses to discourage the most insane forms of financial speculation. As to the causes of the financial crash, the left blames the banks, the right blames the government but as far as I can tell it was the fault of everyone involved, including those people who were stupid enough to take out a mortgage they couldn't repay.

Re: Vote Leave

[cyber-vandal]

I'm sure if he'd been talking about the sovereign debt crisis he would've used the words sovereign and debt instead of banking. What he's clearly referring to is the financial crash that started in the US and George Osborn's intervention to prevent the Europe-wide cap on banking bonuses which is seen as a way to discourage the worst insanities of the early 21st century.

As to the causes of the crash, the left blames the banks, the right blames the government but if you look at it, everyone involved was at fault: the banks creating their exotic financial instruments; the government first forcing banks to lend to those who couldn't afford to pay it back and then repealing the Glass Steagal Act; and the people who decided to have a mortgage when they had no hope of paying it back. In the case of the UK banks, they didn't have any legislation requiring them to lend to bad risks but they fell over themselves to do so anyway.

From what I can see, it was government deregulation that allowed the German (and French) banks to make riskier investments. French banks were privatised to that end. Again, it was the fault of everyone involved that this escalated.

I'm mystified as to why you think the UK bailed everyone out. As far as I know we were in for 7 billion under our obligations to the IMF. How much money do you think we've actually handed over, and do you have some evidence for this?

Re: Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

I'm sure if he'd been talking about the sovereign debt crisis he would've used the words sovereign and debt instead of banking.

And if you go back, you'll see that my original statement was true whichever crisis he was referring to. You then asked for a citation and I gave one. Now I have given the other. What else do you need?

the banks creating their exotic financial instruments

I don't see how you can fault them for that. Financial experts created these instruments, and financial experts bought them. Both buyers and sellers were using the same faulty economic theory. Regulators come from the same pool of financial experts and would have shared the same erroneous beliefs about risk.

From what I can see, it was government deregulation that allowed the German (and French) banks to make riskier investments. French banks were privatised to that end. Again, it was the fault of everyone involved that this escalated.

When the French government bails out private banks to the tune of EU 360 bn, that's not deregulation or privatization, that is crony capitalism. The fault there is the bailout, not the banks. Without the bailout, the fools on either side of those investments would be bankrupt and wouldn't have been able to repeat this stupidity again, which I guarantee they are going to do.

Furthermore, in a free market, no bank is "too big to fail". The reason these banks are "too big to fail" is because of massive barriers to entry into the financial sector, and because governments themselves have built economic fictions and promises around our banking and financial institutions. That is, political promises rely on certain performance from the financial sector, and if the financial sector doesn't deliver, the government steps in and makes it appear that it did by filling the gaps with tax dollars.

I'm mystified as to why you think the UK bailed everyone out.

I wasn't referring to the financial crisis per se but the EU budget. Without the large net contributions of the UK and Germany, the EU budget is in deep trouble.

Re: Vote Leave

[cyber-vandal]

You can't fault them for selling debts on and pretending that those debts would never have to be paid? You're either very forgiving of such dangerous stupidity or so wedded to the "free" market that you think that businesses that nearly brought down the world economy should be allowed to continue doing stupid stuff.

France paid more to the EU than we did last year and Italy weren't far behind either. It's not just us and Germany, and even if it was, our 12 billion Euros wouldn't keep Greece going for more than a couple of months so I've no idea where you're going with that one.

I agree that no bank should be too big to fail and I didn't agree with my government propping up private companies. There is a regulatory barrier to entry, but then banks have proven time and again that they can't be trusted with other people's money? What's your plan. No regulation at all? I'm sure that wouldn't result in anyone being robbed. In any case we don't exactly have a shortage of banks and building societies in the UK despite the barriers to entry. There are even new entrants into the financial sector. I've borrowed money twice from Zopa and there are new banks such as Atom and Metro.

The French privatised their publicly owned banks and deregulated the rest in 1987 and this led, as did the conversion of building societies to banks in the UK, to more reckless lending. It would be far better to force a break up of the bailed out banks to "avoid too big to fail" but that's communism apparently.

What citation did you provide to back up your European arguments? All I saw was a badly edited video talking about how the Democrats destroyed America.

Re: Vote Leave

[ooloorie]

You can't fault them for selling debts on and pretending that those debts would never have to be paid?

There was no "pretense" involved; both buyers and sellers believed the risk estimates to be about right, otherwise they wouldn't have made the transaction. Furthermore, if the risk estimates were wrong, it was the responsibility of the buyers to discover that, not of the seller. After all, in all these transactions, both buyers and sellers were financial experts.

that businesses that nearly brought down the world economy should be allowed to continue doing stupid stuff

It wasn't the businesses that "brought down the world economy", it was governments, through careless investments, careless assumption of risk, and through bailouts. In a free market, none of this crap would have happened.

What's your plan. No regulation at all? I'm sure that wouldn't result in anyone being robbed.

I'm sure some percentage of people would lose their money; stupid people who make unwise choices. Hopefully, they would learn from that. Right now, stupid people can make unwise choices and people who make good choices have to bail them out, over and over again. That's wrong.

The French privatised their publicly owned banks and deregulated the rest in 1987 and this led, as did the conversion of building societies to banks in the UK, to more reckless lending.

No doubt it did. Privatization of public assets is an intrinsically corrupt process, and privatization and deregulation usually are incomplete and don't result in a free market, but a crony capitalist system. That is, once you have nationalized banks and industries, getting back to a free market is extremely hard. That's not a fault of free markets.

What citation did you provide to back up your European arguments?

This follows from the tightly regulated European banking sector, its high degree of public ownership in countries like Germany, and the exposure of public and government-regulated pension funds, which are the norm in European countries. That is, most of the people who bought and sold this debt were all under government control. You can verify that for yourself for the countries of your choice.

All I saw was a badly edited video talking about how the Democrats destroyed America.

If you think that was "badly edited" you don't understand how outrageous the statements by those Democrats were, and how corrupt people like Raines were.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe announces that they're ruled by a bunch of fucktards that have no clue about anything.

Google doesn't control the search market or online advertising market.

The "PEOPLE" control those markets.

The fact that they turn to Google most of the time doesn't make Google the search and advertising landlord, the people using the internet do that.

People go to Google for consistent, reliabel search.
The people running websites realize this and turn to google for ad revenue.

See, it's the people's choice, not Google's.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't control the search market or online advertising market.

So you're just ignoring how Google has massaged searches over time, including putting their own results higher?

Or are you that willfully ignorant?

Re:In other news

[Chrisq]

Europe announces that they're ruled by a bunch of fucktards that have no clue about anything

Which country isn't?

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a go-to excuse. EVERY time ANY US company meets any sort of trouble in Europe, the Slashdot hivemind reflexively has to come to that company's defense. Same with EVERY time there's ANY news of any Chinese achievement in space. It's all bought Russian tech or stolen US tech and, besides, WE landed on the moon almost 50 years ago and... and... and...

It's just people with no accomplishments of their own living vicariously through what they perceive as extensions of themselves. Typically through nationalism mistaken for patriotism.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

If users don't like the results they go elsewhere.
Since users don't go elsewhere, apparently they don't give a flying fuck, so why should Corporations looking for a bigger cut be able to force governments to go "against" their constituents choices???

Or are you just that willfully ignorant?

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better than the ignorant fucks governing the EU thinking they have any say outside their borders.

If I were Google, I'd tell your lil countries to go piss up a rope and cut you off from all Google services.

Let you fucktards figure out how much you depend on Google as your economy collapses.

Re:In other news

[moronoxyd]

"outside their borders"? Google provides lots of services for EU residents.

"your lil countries"? The EU has some 500 million citizen, compared to the US' 350 or so million.
The shareholders would kill Googles executives if they decided to leave the second biggest market.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Google pulled out of China just fine (after all, you did mention second biggest market, and it is, after India; the USA is now considered 3rd, and the entirety of the EU 4th).

Competing Services

[JBMcB]

If some startup proclaims to compete with google, they usually get bought up, and don't continue to offer their services.

Oh really?

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Re:Competing Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow nice, Microsoft a new startup that tries to compete with Google. So the market is still free after all!

Re:Competing Services

[ArmoredDragon]

No, Cyanogen is the startup, and they partnered with Microsoft.

Offering SaaS cloud applications is not a cheap thing to do, especially on the scale that the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and to a lesser extent Yandex have pulled off. Hence it would make sense that if a startup was to do something like this, they'd partner with a bigger company.

Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[tonyyeb]

EU has no problem with the Google Play Store being the primary method of App sales/installs then? Google must make way more from search than the Play Store sales - pretty obvious I know but still, isn't this an area the EU should also look at? Same goes for Apple IMO.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[Bing Tsher E]

One of the nice things about an Android phone is you can stay completely divorced from Google if you choose. You can install the Amazon App Store instead and never, ever, log onto Google, and still have a rich selection of Apps to install.

Of course, then you're hooking your wagon to Amazon instead, which isn't really a lot different.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[TheRaven64]

Try disabling all of the Google services on a typical carrier-tied phone. You can, eventually, get something that works, but it's far more effort than 99% of consumers will go to. Now look around for phones that are pre-installed in this configuration.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[Shadow99_1]

Try the same thing on an Apple phone. Last time I knew you couldn't even use another web browser engine, even their alternatives had to run the same core form the OS. And you sure aren't going to change the 'store' on an Apple phone. It may not be easy on Android, but you can do it.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try disabling all of the Google services on a typical carrier-tied phone. You can, eventually, get something that works, but it's far more effort than 99% of consumers will go to. Now look around for phones that are pre-installed in this configuration.

And how is this Google's fault? Carriers are evil. Don't buy their phones.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[Bing Tsher E]

My point is that you can use the Google services on a cellphone without ever logging onto Google itself. So you are an anonymous entity that they might track individually, but your name isn't tied to said identity.

Re:Search makes more than the Play Store then...

[TheRaven64]

How easy is it to do that? When you turn on an Android phone for the first time, it insists that you either provide an existing Google account or create a new one. You have to create a throw-away account before you can even get to the part of the system that lets you disable using the Google stuff.

what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me so mad I'm going to install Firefox on my iPad. Oh wait.

Re:what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You are too dumb and ignorant to know that Firefox is available for iOS.

Re:what a joke

[ganjadude]

not really, its a firefox skin, not true firefox

Re:what a joke

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Would that be your Samsung, HTC, or Motorola iPad?

Google has a browser?

[Comboman]

Google has a browser? That can't possibly be true, because Microsoft's market dominance in the 90s ensured that their default Internet Explorer browser did not face any competition and is now the only browser that exists (at least according to the logic of EU regulators).

Re:Google has a browser?

[Sique]

You got it in reverse. Because (beside other things) the EU forced standard Windows installs not to bundle Internet Explorer, but to leave the choice of a browser to the consumer, other browsers could compete on their merit. And now we have several viable browser alternatives.

Apparently the logic of the EU regulators had the desired effect.

Re:Google has a browser?

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe you didn't notice but Microsoft had to add the browser choice screen to all EU versions of Windows, and at the time there was a noticeable shift away from IE. It's also likely that the EU and US complaints about IE were a factor in its long stagnation period, during which Firefox and then Chrome were able to gain market share quickly.

Another thing we can thank the EU for is Windows N. It's like normal Windows but doesn't include the Media Player and some other bloatware we never use.

Re:Google has a browser?

[AvitarX]

Yeah, there's no way that MS softening the integration of their browser in the OS as a response to potential (and even actual) regulation allowed for a competitive browser market

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you serious? MS's bullshit set the internet back by 5 fucking years, if mozilla hadn't been open sourced by shear luck it probably would have been longer. MS deserved every piece of hate that they got for that bullshit

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is almost funny.

My Windows 10 upgrade included some setup actions that required a browser. before I could choose a browser. Indeed, fresh new machines also require some setup options that require a browser, before you can choose a browser.

Is Diane Feinstein writing these rules for the EU? The level of technological ineptitude is scary. These people need to be kept away from legislation.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's browser is back in Windows 10. But because it's Edge, it's not monopolistic. Oh, and IE is back, too, but isn't the default.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reference to the 1990s? Check.

Misrepresenting someone else's argument? Check.

Vague disdain for regulators? Check.

Modded up? Of course, this is Slashdot.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, all of this was available before the EU decided to wade into waters without their arm floaties.

The EU decision had absolutely no effect whatsoever as the choice was already there.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

bwhahahahfuckinghahhwha

Re:Google has a browser?

[Solandri]

Nope. After IE hit about 90% market share, Microsoft figured they'd conquered the market and killed off all competitors. So they decided they'd earned a well-deserved rest and did... nothing. They stopped all development work on IE. For about 13 months they didn't add any new features to IE - the only updates were security updates (this was around 2001-2002 if I remember). This was an eternity in web browser development at the time. When Netscape and IE were competing, they were rolling out new features semi-annually or even quarterly.

That window was what allowed Firefox to take hold. Can you imagine browsing without tabs? Firefox introduced tabs, and that feature alone made it immensely popular. FF made IE look so much like a lump of coal that FF quickly jumped to about 25% market share. By the time the EU browser choice requirement was implemented (Dec 2009), FF was already over 30% market share. Google's Chrome browser had already been steadily growing in popularity for most of that year, and FF actually decreased in market share after the EU-mandated browser choice.

So it'd be more accurate to say Microsoft blew it big time by choosing to stand still because they had a monopoly, but that only cost them about a third of their monopoly. It took another quasi-monopoly (Google search + apps) to break Microsoft's OS-browser monopoly for good. I'm not sure the EU browser choice window had any effect. IE was already on the way down at the end of 2009 when the EU mandate was implemented. And the rate at which IE declined in market share didn't change appreciably from before 1Q 2010 to after.

(That's not to say I disagree with the EU mandate. I was actually more anti-Microsoft back in those days and felt they should've been broken up into an OS company and an apps company. But the problem with government regulation in software is that it just takes too damn long, and by the time it's finally implemented the entire software landscape has already changed for other reasons.)

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, sounds legit. That's _totally_ what happened!

Why just the other day I had a similar situation in which I burnt some hotdogs on my grill. Well, not wanting that I promptly turned down the heat and luckily did it just in time to unburn said hotdogs. They were delicious!

Re:Google has a browser?

[Tough Love]

...MS's bullshit set the internet back by 5 fucking years...

Also, ASP set the internet back by 6 years, Silverlight by 2 years, Flash by 7 years and PHP by 8 years. In total, the internet is now -2 years old.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox introduced tabs, and that feature alone made it immensely popular.

Hate to break it to you, but the Mozilla Suite had tabs in 2001, and so did Opera (if you are willing to call its oldskool MDI a 'tabbed interface').

Fx (nee Phoenix) didn't get a public release until 2002, and the 1.0 release happened around 2004.

So why wasn't the Mozilla Suite 'immensely popular' then? It had tabs.

When Netscape and IE were competing, they were rolling out new features semi-annually or even quarterly.

Crap. Is that the situation we're in now? Do not want.

Re:Google has a browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox did introduce tabs to their browser, but you make it sound like they were the first. Opera created nearly every browser feature that came about between 98-2003.

So Microsoft is the next to go to Court

[Anonymous Coward]

FTR: "1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;"

Let me change the company and product names:

"1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Microsoft Office and Microsoft Internet Explorer and requiring them to set Microsoft Office Templates/Gallery and Bing as default search services on their PC, as condition to license certain Microsoft propietary apps;"

So, it's great to know that EU will force Microsoft to change Office image search to openclipart.org (for example) and that Internet Explorer will default to google.com on first start. Great!

Re:So Microsoft is the next to go to Court

[AvitarX]

For the IE issue, I've definitely had computers that did not default to IE or Bing when I purchased them.

The EU is claiming that Google is not allowing that option. This is actually arguable IMO.

I don't think vendors that want the Android name, or the Play store are allowed to (I could be wrong), but Vendors can forgo those two things and replace whatever.

Additionally, if they are making exclusivity contracts, there's limits to what they can include.

Re:So Microsoft is the next to go to Court

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, if you want Google Play, you MUST include all other Google apps. This is what the EU has a gripe with.

Google Play Spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

Try turning off Google Play Services, and it will remove everything you've installed from Google Play. Yet if you don't turn it off, its a giant piece of Google spyware.

If you manage to root the phone, and disable Google Play, then lo-and-behold, all your apps continue to run without the need for Google to spy on you.

Re: Google Play Spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea where you get this from.

You can remove your account from your phone without issue.

Only the apps that use Google DRM (it's labeled in the prednisone for those who want to avoid companies employing it) MIGHT be affected.

Re:Google Play Spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Play Services exists to backport new OS features to all phones regardless of carrier OTA updates.

What has this to do with any copyright claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on Earth does "The European Commission's statement of objections against Android lends further credibility to Oracle's $9B copyright claim,"?

This is a total non-sequitur.

Re:What has this to do with any copyright claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back from the original lawsuit days: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-court-patent-blogger-florian-mueller-is-a-consultant

Re:What has this to do with any copyright claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if you haven't been around long enough to have heard of Florian Mueller, you can pretty much rest easy knowing that any opinion he renders is completely and utterly the opposite of reality.

See also any story posted on Slashdot revolving around the SCO case. How someone so retarded managed to acquire a job requiring an apparent level of high functioning is beyond me.

The key is the apps

[NotInHere]

Google's lock in system bases not on the google-owned apps (they are just a few, and yes they are very much used by users, but I guess people can come up with an alternative). The main reason to be locked in to Google is their proprietary APIs they offer to app developers. You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.

So even if a competitor managed to replace all the gapps that are exposed to the user (maps, search, etc), they still would have a very hard time at building a competing app store. Most of the app developers don't want to port the app if the user count is low and nobody would install it if they couldn't install all the apps.

Its the same issue linux is facing. People don't care about operating systems. They want to install an application, and if it doesn't work, its not the fault of the application developers, its the fault of the operating system (at least for them).

Re:The key is the apps

[shawn2772]

Google's lock in system bases not on the google-owned apps (they are just a few, and yes they are very much used by users, but I guess people can come up with an alternative). The main reason to be locked in to Google is their proprietary APIs they offer to app developers. You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.

I don't see that.

Looking at the APIs in question, I see a pretty extensive list, but it's pretty much all just stuff to interact with Google services. There are APIs for:

Google ads
Google analytics
Google search integration (AppIndexing)
Google account authentication
Google cast devices
Google drive integration
Google fit integration
Google games integration
Google cloud messaging integration
Google location services
Google maps integration
Google street view integration
Google+ integration
Google vision integration (server-based service for doing object recognition)
Google wallet integration
Wear integration

Only the last item (Wear integration) isn't obviously tied to some Google server-side systems. And while the above list is a pretty useful set of services for apps that want to use them, there are lots and lots of apps that have absolutely no need for any of the above... with one exception. I suspect what breaks most apps that don't work on non-GMS devices is the lack of the ads API. But there are third-party ads libraries which wrap the GMS ads API as well as other ads APIs so that app developers who don't want to be tied to Google only (and many do like to use other ad networks, so there's a reason for this other than independence of GMS APIs) can use those. Thanks to the run-time class loading and introspection features of Java, it's fairly easy to write code that checks whether a particular class (e.g. com.google.android.gms.ads.MobileAds) is present, and to then do something more useful than crashing if it's not and AFAIK all of the ads aggregation APIs do that.

My perception is that Google tries hard to ensure that as much as possible goes into the core system, and as little as possible goes into the GMS APIs. The exceptions are (a) things that are inherently tied to Google services and (b) things that Google wants to be able to update on its own (e.g. WebView). That second category is stuff that Google will move back to the core system if and when OEMs fix their update process problems, I expect.

(Disclosure: I'm a Google Android engineer. Note that I'm carefully *not* addressing the topic of the EU anti-trust investigation, and I will not, for obvious reasons.)

Re: The key is the apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

APKs from the Play store can be backed up and moved to any other device. Only apps that explicitly rely on Google services and DRM will likely not work. Note: this does not apply to apps linked by intents; apps can seamlessly replace missing components (ie browser)

I've backed up apps to offline devices, so I've got practical experience.

Re:The key is the apps

[AmiMoJo]

You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.

There are over 1,800 apps on the FDroid repository alone that work just fine without Google's apps. Many of them are also available on Google Play. Android is actually really good about not requiring Google Apps to work, and distros like Cyanogen offer FOSS replacements for them. Basically the APIs used are public and can be implemented by any app simply by taking ownership of the relevant "intents".

Re:The key is the apps

[NotInHere]

There are over 1,800 apps on the FDroid repository alone that work just fine without Google's apps.

And there are even more apps that are open source but not on F-Droid because they use one Google API or another. Think of Signal, for example. Also, often developers add a feature to an app where they integrate Google maps or something, and bam the new version of the app can't be included into F-Droid anymore. This puts lots of stress onto the app developers, as they now have to develop for two stores, not just one, and very often they are annoyed by the F-Droid crowd demanding to remove Google API usage while not being able to bring up alternatives. Signal is a very good example for this as well.

Its a wonder that Telegram and Osmand (probably the two most useful F-Droid apps) still remain on the store.

distros like Cyanogen offer FOSS replacements for them

Cyanogen OS is not CyanogenMod. It is developed by the same people, but CyanogenMod is open source, while Cyanogen OS is not. And CyanogenMod can only exist in an area of semi-legality, tolerated by google because it is so small. Most CM users just want it to work ^ tm and install gapps illegally from dubious sources onto the device. CM itself provides no FOSS replacements for the google APIs, only some open source apps, but nothing more. Don't know about whether Cyanogen OS provides replacements.

Re: The key is the apps

[NotInHere]

As I said, most of the apps won't work if there is no gapps installed on the device. Some of them will continue to work, I agree with that.

Re:The key is the apps

[jabuzz]

That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?

Re:The key is the apps

[NotInHere]

First of all, its great to see google being devoted to open source this much. Not many companies do release so much code. That's really cool! I guess this also helped convincing Microsoft to abandon their "Open source == cancer" strategy, proving that you can be the leader of a market *and* release open source software.

Most apps will use at least two of analytics, ads, and GCM, probably almost all will use at least one of those three.

Also its good for Google being able to have at least some influence on the manufacturers.

But still, its very hard for competing ROM and app market manufacturers to emerge if they have to replace all of google's cloud services, in order to have the faintest chance at competing against the world market leader.

One good way to enable competition would be to require google to give access for their online APIs without lock-in (but the same java client side API), for a fair price that allows google to make money with the service and allows competition to offer products using that service.
Similar has been done with POTS providers in the EU and the US in the past.

Re:The key is the apps

[jareth-0205]

That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?

Well, largely, yeah. There are only a fraction of apps in comparison. It takes special work to port over now because you have to reimplement / workaround that stuff from Google Services API that you can't use and for many developers it's not worth the effort.

Re:The key is the apps

[gabbleratchet]

That's true from the point of view of an app developer. However it is different from the point of view of a device maker.

The issue is that lots and lots of very popular apps use the proprietary Google APIs. You can't make a device that runs all of these very popular apps without licensing the proprietary Google APIs from Google.

And Google won't license you their APIs unless you follow certain rules that are ostensibly about preventing fragmentation of the Android ecosystem, but are in reality about preventing non-Android devices from being able to run Android apps.

This is why the Amazon Fire and Blackberry 10 platforms could only offer limited Android support. They weren't making vanilla Anrdroid devices, and so Google wouldn't license them their APIs. And therefore they could not run the many very popular apps that rely on the Google APIs.

Re: The key is the apps

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone writes an app that requires the OPTIONAL Google Maps, then Google Maps needs to be installed? WOW! Solution? Don't use Google Maps if you don't want to require Google Maps! No App NEEDS any Google services. They are all optional.

Re:The key is the apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of services which used to be part of AOSP are moved into google play.

Re:The key is the apps

[shawn2772]

Most of this is getting too close to discussion of the anti-trust investigation, so I won't respond. Sorry about that.

Re:The key is the apps

[shawn2772]

That's true from the point of view of an app developer. However it is different from the point of view of a device maker.

I'd like to respond but I think this is getting too close to the anti-trust investigation discussion, so I won't. Sorry. I generally ignore the common (and probably quite correct) wisdom that employees shouldn't discuss their employers' actions in public, but I draw the line where legal action is involved. To be precise, I've twice gotten phone calls from Google attorneys who -- very politely and apologetically, mind you! -- told me to shut my big mouth, when I said things about ongoing legal issues. I'm pretty thickheaded, but I do learn eventually :-)

Re:The key is the apps

[Khyber]

Hey, go tell the Youtube people to fix their broken shit before we decide on that class action. Or better yet, pass that along to your lawyers since you seem to have direct contact with them. :)

I'm not sure these guys know how computers work

[H3lldr0p]

From the first link:

...However, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks.

Which makes sooooo much sense from a software shop perspective as well as a historical one as well. You want there to be as singular as an install base as possible. Same goes for the Linux kernel. Is the commission going to go after that next?

A second section:

As a result, rival search engines are not able to become the default search service on the significant majority of devices sold in the EEA.

Defaults can be pretty powerful, just go ask Microsoft and IE. But that doesn't stop people from installing something that works better for them. See Chrome and Firefox, both of which were able to overcome IE's default market position by offering a product that people liked better. The same can and should happen here.

I think there should be a space between the search results and the advertisement side of Alphabet. However, that's an entirely separate issue from Android. The same goes for privacy. Both are important enough to break out on their own, so this? This is nuts.

Re:I'm not sure these guys know how computers work

[Solandri]

I'm curious how the EU is going to get "Google can't require partners to use only one version of Android" to coexist with "Google needs to require vendors to update Android in a timely manner."

Missing the point

[zmooc]

I don't care Google Play is the only app store. I don't care they impose restrictions on vendors. I don't care. What I do care about is the lack of innovation in mobile browsers. The sole reason native mobile app are and remain so popular is the lack of a proper web-based alternative, which is likely to be actively held back by Apple and Google, effectively creating a monopoly for native apps while we could have had proper web-based apps (with offline support, proper notifications, proper storage, proper integration with GPS/camera/*) that just work everywhere for ages. But we don't. Because of our friends at Google and Apple.

Re:Missing the point

[Hentes]

There's also the thing that web apps suck. The web is a hypertext platform, not an app platform.

Re:Missing the point

[ChunderDownunder]

Mozilla tried that and all the naysayers on here said Firefox OS was a bad idea, so they killed it.

I personally liked the OS...

Re:Missing the point

[drinkypoo]

The sole reason native mobile app are and remain so popular is the lack of a proper web-based alternative, which is likely to be actively held back by Apple and Google, effectively creating a monopoly for native apps while we could have had proper web-based apps

If web-based apps were so much better, you'd be using them already. They aren't, so you aren't. Apple has done bad things to competing browsers, but Google hasn't, and yet mobile Firefox still sucks. That's not Google's fault.

Re:Missing the point

[MachineShedFred]

Wow, so the worm has turned.

Remember 10 years ago when the iPhone came out, and all it had was web apps, and everyone bitched and moaned that they hadn't published developer tools and an API to code against?

And this was when there actually was enough innovation in mobile browsers, as Safari Mobile made every other browser on every other phone look like a joke, leading to WebKit (and it's descendants) to rule the browser market today.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, in retrospect the "web apps are all you need" thing turned out to be complete bullshit.

1. They depend on network access
1a. they are sensitive to network latency
1b. they stop working if the home server gets shut down

2. They cannot be vetted for security issues
2a. They should not be allowed access to many systems that a local app can be allowed
2b. They can be trivially compromised with impersonation attacks

3. They are difficult to monetize

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think it's not as much that the apps suck, as much as having to type in the url, and creating shortcuts is a hassle. Ok some apps would suck but most could be web apps just fine.

Re:Missing the point

[MachineShedFred]

Of course it was complete bullshit. This is why the parent post is ridiculous.

Bing Bong

[fluffernutter]

In all honesty I've tried to use other search engines but none of them come close to Google results, especially when searching on development terms, error messages and the like. Don't even get me started on Bing, it clearly steers the results towards something it can sell you. There seems to be a funny philosophy that Bing was made with.. it seems to be orientated to people, places, and things rather than point me to the actual answer to a development question that is buried in an internet comment somewhere.

Re:Bing Bong

[Anubis IV]

I've found DuckDuckGo to be consistently better (which wasn't always the case for me, but is now), particularly when searching development topics. Oftentimes, it'll show a preview of the top answer from StackOverflow above the search results. Mind you, not just the link, but the answer itself. Super helpful for quick answers to dealing with weird error messages. And if I want to skip the DDG search results entirely, I can use their bangs (e.g. !sof for Stack Overflow, !w for Wikipedia, !a for Amazon, !gm for Google Map, etc.) to immediately run the search I typed into my browser's search bar on the site I want to go to.

  I tried DDG years ago and found its results lackluster, but after trying it again last year, I fell in love and have been using more and more of it since.

How do you think you even get Android patches?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without Google twisting the arms of device manufacturers and carriers, you'd have to buy a new device for every new minor version of Android that is released.

The EU has fucked up antitrust laws

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, they've actually required businesses to raise their prices, claiming that low prices were predatory. There's little evidence that predatory pricing can succeed as an anticompetitive tactic.

The licensing terms of Google Mobile Services allow Google to restrict how crapware gets forced on users. That's probably a good thing. If you allow manufacturers to set other default app stores and applications, you're giving an incentive to manufacturers and carriers to load up phones with more crapware.

EU antitrust laws are seriously fucked up.

Re:The EU has fucked up antitrust laws

[NotInHere]

claiming that low prices were predatory

Low predatory pricing is *the* tool against destroying competition that's smaller than you. You are the big one, you have the capital to keep the price low (even if it's not profitable for you!), for as long as you want. You just wait until your small competition either gets no customers because their prices aren't competing with your's or they go bankrupt because they used up their much smaller capital much faster than you.

Then, after all small competition is ruled out, you can rise prices again and make much more money than you spent on the aggressive predatory pricing.

Re: The EU has fucked up antitrust laws

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you raise prices back up, you invite competition back into the market. The US doesn't have strong restrictions against predatory pricing, but it really hasn't been an issue in the US. If the problem actually existed, shouldn't there be a real problem with predatory pricing in the US? The data doesn't support your theory. There are plenty of ways that US companies engage in anticompetitive behavior but predatory pricing hasn't been one of them.

Re: The EU has fucked up antitrust laws

[zennyboy]

Yes, your internet and TV services are some of the cheapest in the world. Oh, wait... Healthcare? Insurance? As they said, Breaking Bad would have been a very short series in the rest of the developed world...

Re: The EU has fucked up antitrust laws

[Bing Tsher E]

And an even shorter series if it had been based in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

What was your point?

Rule #1

[twmcneil]

If you have any respect at all for your own credibility, do not quote Florian Mueller. I'd say he's an ass, but that would be disrespectful to the Donkey.

Re:Rule #1

[Anonymous Coward]

^^ this

Came here to say it - glad it was already said.

Re:Rule #1

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be disrepsectful to any donkey.

Florian Mueller???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Slashdot continue to given any credence to this assclown?

nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.

Re:nationalism and greed

[houghi]

You mean the uncompetitive companies like BP, Shell, Philips, Siemens, AB Inbev, Heineken, Mercedes, Volvo, Volkswagen, Nestle, Unilever, ... (You might even figure out why they are grouped like they are)

And through political machinations where e.g. the US companies just poor NO money into politics and lobbying and what not, right?

And many of these companies have been caught attention of the EU laws. Mosy learned to play nice.

Re:nationalism and greed

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of your examples smell funny.

AB Inbev is a result of the merger of a US company with a European rival that, try as they might, just couldn't break into the US market any other way. Followed by the quick decline of US buying habits for their product. The entire thing still reeks of failure. European failure.

Heineken is known in the US as "that brand of beer in the green bottles that gets foul during import."

Then there's Volvo, the car company that was fully owned by Ford, until Ford gave up trying to make Volvo's product interesting and sold the whole mess off to Tata Motors. To be fair, Volvo is still has a strong brand with their commercial truck business. In Europe. Only.

And Nestle... oh, Nestle. You'll forever be the European mega-conglomerate that the US knows only by their chocolate chips.

From a US perspective, none of these companies is particularly competitive. They're all getting beaten handily by their local rivals, with the possible exception of AB/Inbev, which is getting beaten by the sudden realization that they always produced bad beer and good marketing. Craft beers are eating their lunch. So I guess you could say that their even-more-local rivals are beating them.

Re:nationalism and greed

[Anonymous Coward]

First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech

You are aware that that is not acutally true, right? Unless you consider mobile phone apps that do trivial things 'innovation and high tech'. The US may be ahead in marketing and selling existing technology things as innovative, but in actual technical R&D, they are not all that competetive with Europe and Asia.

Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.

Regulation against anti-competetive behaviour exists precisely to prevent such things. You are probably accustomed to the situation in the US, where laws are often applied differently to domestic and foreign companies and many laws and regulations serve either as a concealed form of protectionism or to fulfil requests from campaign donors (or both).

Re:nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

You mean the uncompetitive companies like BP, Shell, Philips, Siemens, AB Inbev, Heineken, Mercedes, Volvo, Volkswagen, Nestle, Unilever, ... (You might even figure out why they are grouped like they are)

I know English is a tough language, but you could at least try! "Uncompetitive European corporations are trying..." doesn't mean "all European corporations are uncompetitive". In fact, even you might be able to figure out which uncompetitive European corporations particularly dislike Google. Hint: it's not beer or car manufacturers.

And through political machinations where e.g. the US companies just poor NO money into politics and lobbying and what not, right?

Ah, what a wonderful Tu Quoque fallacy. Indeed, they do. And when they do, I criticize them for that as well.

And many of these companies have been caught attention of the EU laws. Mosy learned to play nice.

If by "play nice" you mean that the join the club of European corporations that screw people like you over and then have you say "thank you, I LIKED it" because you don't know any better, then you're right.

Re:nationalism and greed

[jareth-0205]

Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.

OK, rarr rarr USA, whatever.

If you knew anything outside your little patriotic bubble you'd know the EU quite commonly has gone after European pharma conglomerates. Also, laws here are tighter around competition and privacy than in the US, so obviously US companies are going to fall foul of them more often because they are not stopped at home.

Re:nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

Also, laws here are tighter around competition and privacy than in the US, so obviously US companies are going to fall foul of them more often because they are not stopped at home.

Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?

If you knew anything outside your little patriotic bubble you'd know the EU

It's because of my "patriotic bubble" in Europe that I emigrated to the US. Imagine that.

Re:nationalism and greed

[jareth-0205]

Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?

Er... that if Google is not following the law that all companies operating in EU have to follow, that does not make applying that law protectionism.

Re:nationalism and greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?

Are you one of those Uncyclopedia writers, who just writes the opposite of a fact and then thinks it is funny?

It's because of my "patriotic bubble" in Europe that I emigrated to the US. Imagine that.

Ah, you drunk the Kool-Aid and now you feel you have to defend your choice at each and every opportunity, because deep inside, you know it wasn't a very clever move.

Re:nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

Er... that if Google is not following the law that all companies operating in EU have to follow, that does not make applying that law protectionism.

You're right: the nature of a law doesn't depend on whether it is applied or whether people obey it.

For example, the Nuremberg Laws were anti-Semitic even though many Germans didn't actually follow them.

Re:nationalism and greed

[jareth-0205]

Er... that if Google is not following the law that all companies operating in EU have to follow, that does not make applying that law protectionism.

You're right: the nature of a law doesn't depend on whether it is applied or whether people obey it.

For example, the Nuremberg Laws were anti-Semitic even though many Germans didn't actually follow them.

Godwin's in 3. Props...

Re:nationalism and greed

[Hentes]

You need to be more specific. Which EU corporation exactly is competing with Android? Nokia and Ericsson have already left the handheld market.

Re:nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

Your response is as predictable as it is stupid and trite.

I'm sorry you can't figure out the logical error in your original statement even with this much help.

Re:nationalism and greed

[ooloorie]

You need to be more specific. Which EU corporation exactly is competing with Android? Nokia and Ericsson have already left the handheld market.

European telecom carriers want more control, and they want to take away power from Google. Furthermore, many people have an economic interest in hurting Google, foremost European publishers, newspapers, media, and telecom companies.

Re:nationalism and greed

[jareth-0205]

Your response is as predictable as it is stupid and trite.

I'm sorry you can't figure out the logical error in your original statement even with this much help.

And you have no self awareness sense of humour... we all have our crosses to bear.

Rememer the Alamo! Or the Maine! Or IE4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never surrender! We know what happened when IE4 was IT. I am immune to mixed metaphorlogical redress, unto the union of bittersweet bread on the brain.

I thought Florian Mueller died after groklaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how to tell when Florian Mueller is lying?

When the fingers are typing or mouth is open.

Try this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome and compare the results for certain queries. For example, using Edge when searching for the site from Arnaldo Jabor commentaries on CBN channel, the first result displayed by Google differs when using Chrome when searching for the same keywords.

Google doesn't admit because it hurts their interests on monitoring people with high IQ. Their intention is to steal peoples ideas, no matter if scientific or crappy cartoonish ideas. Google MUST die.

And AGAIN: I have a functional brain with functional memory. I don't need to be doped with your troll ideas to think about that little turd. I already wake up aware that shit is still alive, therefore still living to disturb my serenity. I'm not changing the big "NO" that your retarded face deserves, no matter who You're. (to me You are a former prostitute protected by the police. You may not be one, but that's the impression that works to avoid sharing my life with your shitty richy life. I'm just waiting the perfect day to throw shit at your house, to make sure You have something to remember)

Once again, the Europeans are going off the cliff

[The-Forge]

Ok, based off what I read, 1 & 3 are true but they are common business practices used in multiple areas. 2 is completely false but market forces make it look true.

A good example of 1 & 3 is Coke. If you decide to have Coke in your business, Coke will give you things as promotional considerations. Signs with you name on it plus the Coke logo, etc. But to get those you have to not carry Pepsi. That's the crux of 1 & 3. If you want to carry both, then you don't get the goodies that go along with them. You can preload Play with something else, but not Maps, Gmail and the other unless you agree to exclusivity for the preinstalled items. (The Play concession was made a while back to satisfy some anti-trust worries). More manufactures don't do that though because of the incentives plus market forces. People want Google's stuff there and ready. Google isn't holding a gun to people's head saying "Use Gmail or else". There are plenty of option and I use one myself in the form of AquaMail to my non-Gmail e-mail.

As for #2, hello, phones being sold running Cyanogen and others based on AOSP derivatives, but they don't have a big market share yet, or maybe ever. Market forces (people) aren't creating a demand for them. Thus the big guys don't make Cyanogen phones because people won't buy them en mass. And it's not for a lack of trying. Look at Samsung and all the times they've tried to do Tizen as an Android alternative. They never got anywhere. The mass market is happy with what they have. Phone OSs are a two horse race (Android and iOS). You're not going to force the market to accept more if they don't want it, but that's seems to be what the EU is angling for with #2.

This is just how I see it. I'm sure someone is going to come along with some conspiracy and collusion theory as to why I'm wrong, but this is a situation where the simple answer is the answer.

fsck.eu

[Anonymous Coward]

As European, fsck the EU. I could expunge more for the fsck to EU reasons, but the coffee sitting in front of me is more attracting than rebutting EU silly claims.

Did I read that correctly?

[deadwill69]

"Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good." I don't even know what to say about this! If you can't compete on your own merits then where is the problem? Give me something better and maybe I'll try it. WebOS was pretty good, but it couldn't compete on it's merits either. We all see where it is. Make a better product. Google and Apple did and they are winning. On their own merits.

Re:Did I read that correctly?

[jareth-0205]

"Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good."

I don't even know what to say about this! If you can't compete on your own merits then where is the problem? Give me something better and maybe I'll try it. WebOS was pretty good, but it couldn't compete on it's merits either. We all see where it is. Make a better product. Google and Apple did and they are winning. On their own merits.

I think you're parsing that incorrectly. The quote is saying that rival search engines are being prevented from competing on their merits. Preinstallation is everything, because user inertia means you won't usually go to the trouble of changing the search engine. So if Google use their power to prevent preinstallation of a rival, you aren't likely to ever know of its merits.

monopolies and super-profits are BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

All these idiot investors can't be idiots, cos they're rich, right?

Q: What kind of person thinks profitability is a worthwhile indicator of whether a thing is good/bad?

A: Greedy, blind and arrogant.

And that what Management/stockholders of every company is.

Fuck Google with their monopolist hubris up their stupid asses.

Pfft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should just change all the default search engines to Yahoo!. That'll teach them.

same rules for everybody

[jandersen]

...requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser...

If it is wrong for Microsoft to do it, then it must also be wrong for Google, even if their practise isn't unpopular (yet).

Re:same rules for everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are mistaken. Microsoft still does it but they made it easier for you to choose alternative browser.

Re:same rules for everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

But Google doesn't require any pre-installs. Android is Open Source. Grab the source and leave Google services out of it.

#2 is factually false

[Nemyst]

Cyanogenmod and FireOS are two competing OS's using AOSP as a basis which are found preinstalled on phones. It's not because the latter isn't available in Europe that Google should be blamed for it.

Re:#2 is factually false

[serviscope_minor]

The people involved in competition disputes are actually interested in whether there is real competition and if a company is trying to use dominance in one are to gain dominance in another. They are not intereste in theoretically things that could compete but aren't.

Remember the point is not about having a monopoly it's about abusing it.

Why is the EU attacking Google?

[drinkypoo]

Is it just because they're American? They're not actually doing any of this shit. Carriers are free to bundle another search, and they don't have to put google search on the home screen. They can also bundle another browser or whatever if they like. The truth is that there is no viable competition for most gapps. It's not because google has done anything to prevent it; if someone else can come up with something better, then they are free to put it in the app store and people will download it.

Re:Why is the EU attacking Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if a manufacturer wants access to the Play Store, they are required to ship all the gApps Google specify. This also specifies placement of these apps in the app drawer and includes a Google search bar on every launcher screen. They're even making it harder for manufacturers to offer their own or skin launchers...as you might've noticed TouchWiz and Sense have become more and more Googlised over time as Google tightens the restrictions with each release. They've also been adding more restrictions on SD Cards. In addition, if a manufacturer ships any Google certified Android devices, they're barred from shipping any other non-blessed, e.g. AOSP-based, devices.

In terms of viable competative apps...there are loads. Samsung effectively ships gApps as well as their own SApps and they Play Store is full over other app that I'm sure would love to be shipped by default. Rumour goes that Nokia was investigating Android before Windows Phone, but Google refused them Android certification if they included Nokia (now HERE) Maps.

That's how competing products are prevented from competing on merit.

I can think of a few ways ...

[Qbertino]

... those complaints could apply to Apple aswell.

Just sayin'.

Trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

If a phone or tablet doesn't search Google, it's not called Android. You'll have to call it something else, there are multiple distributions derived from Android that do not have this restriction.

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[del_diablo]

That they are common do not mean they are intentonal. There is a difference between having to pay a fee per shipment of goods, and being able to bundle goods per shipment. The former is a example of why restaurants only carry soft drinks from one brand: To order more than 1 brand would require more than 1 shipment, which costs money.
Which is also why shipment services exist in the first place. To a business it might be cheaper to hire a third party to pick up all the goods and deliver it, then to have have individual shipments from manufacturer.

Thats very different from the goods manufacturer requiring mono product sales, for Discount. Bulk discount is also a different thing.

Anyhoodles

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's a market that wouldn't even exist but for Google. Prior to this search engines were shitty, pure text searches. Some were toying with auto rankings of search phrases based on which results people actuay clicked on (I think Ask Jeeves(?) had a patent on that?)

Anyway, this much deeper search is all Google, which is why people went to them.

Re:Anyhoodles

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't know about anyone else, but I always have to go back to Google to find info on Microsoft.com (especially technical articles or programming specs), updates for Microsoft or Logitech stuff, items on Best Buy, because all their searches are old-school pure text shit.

No, Microsoft. If I push F1 in Excel on a Visual Basic keyword in Excel, I am not looking for something in a Java or Microsoft Access language.

This is why you fail.

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[squiggleslash]

I'm not justifying the action in any way, but be aware that regulators tend to look at market power when determining whether a business's marketing violates competition regulations. Coke and Pepsi are more or less equals, so Coke discriminating against a store that sells Pepsi isn't something that necessarily violates monopoly laws.

I suspect the logic here is that Android with Google's services is installed on virtually everything that isn't Apple. Moreover, Google's middleware with Android is the only real choice for mobile phone manufacturers as iOS isn't available to them, and nothing else is taken seriously by the market. Therefore, an argument can be made that Google has market power, and has to tread more carefully than other businesses when determining when its products can be used.

I suspect some of these are the EU overreaching whereas others Google could comply with relatively easily. Google can drop the search page and bundled software requirement, allowing manufacturers to license just Play Services and the Play Store, which would be enough as far as most end users are concerned.

The question is whether Google wants to fight what, to many of us, is a pointless war by both sides with some negative consequences when it comes to motivating private, profit seeking, businesses to contribute to free software.

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

how much Apple is bribing EU members for this. Man, this is insane. Bloody idiots.

Apple

[backslashdot]

This must be Apple's hypocritical doing. How come Apple hasn't been sued for monopolistic practices? When you buy apps or movies on iTunes (legally) you are have to spend money to repurchase them if you want to switch to Android. Also there is no way to re-sell apps that you bought once you are done with it.

Re:Apple

[wiredog]

Also, all browsers running on iOS have to use the Apple rendering engine!

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be Apple's hypocritical doing. How come Apple hasn't been sued for monopolistic practices? When you buy apps or movies on iTunes (legally) you are have to spend money to repurchase them if you want to switch to Android. Also there is no way to re-sell apps that you bought once you are done with it.

When I buy a bumper for my Jeep, and I later get a pickup truck, I will have to re-buy the bumper for the pickup truck. How fair is that? The bumper manufacturer is screwing me! They should just let me return the Jeep bumper and get a pickup bumper.

Yeah, the Jeep and the pickup are different platforms and the things that work on them are fundamentally incompatible, but hey, why should that matter?

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

To be sued for monopolistic practices Apple would first need to have a monopoly on something, which it doesn't.
Car analogy: if I buy a Ford and put some nice rims on it and them switch to a Toyota where the rims won't fit, should I be able to sue Ford?

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's always been like that since day 1. It's not like they changed their mind after some devs started using third-party renderers. Big difference.

Cauterize

[emil]

I would like a button in Android that disables all Google applications and services, and halts any communication with Google servers.

That would be a wonderful new addition to Android. Sometimes the telemetry is just an uninvited guest.

This would conventionally be done with Cyanogenmod by omitting gapps post-install. There are two problems with that approach: a) fascist carriers with locked bootloaders, and b) a very high technical skillset that is not available to novice users.

A simple button to "cauterize google" would solve the problem nicely.

Europe could very well get such a thing, but I am unlikely to see it as I live in the U.S. where we are still waiting for the "right to be forgotten."

Europe/Russia, by all means, wedge this in. If Google balks, fork AOSP and ban sales of phones that include Google services. That would be quite an interesting fight.

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[Anonymous Coward]

Phone OSs are a two horse race (Android and iOS).

The issue really is with the app stores. It means whichever you pick you're locked into because your purchases aren't transferrable to the other store. Adding a 3rd option just increases that problem further because they will be no more compatible. If the EU should be looking at anything it should be that - some kind of data sharing or standardisation so that you can transfer your app purchases when you migrate device.

Success is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Be mediocre. If you are so good that you dominate the market, we will kill you.

Sincerely, the fascist communists in all places and at all times.

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[jareth-0205]

Once more from the rooftops:

The rules change when you become a monopoly.

Apple still play but they are a relatively niche provider in the worldwide scheme of things, so it's becoming fair to think of Android as a monopoly. You have to act deliberately carefully when everybody *has* to use you otherwise you will get regulated, and there's evidence of deliberate control of the market by Google.

Amazon

[darkain]

Amazon apparently has no major issues taking Android and turning it into something entirely different, with their own interface and tools for their Fire line of products. Are these not available in the EU or somethin?

sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a phone that has a flashlight built in, yet, I can not use the flashlight because there is no way to turn it on. There is no flashlight app preinstalled (nor a flashlight switch or button). The only way to use the flashlight on the phone I bought, is to create a google account , use the app store, and download a 3rd party app to use the flashlight.

This is totally unacceptable.

Firefox and duckduckgo work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm annoyed I can't install Debian on this computer in form of a cellphone.

Anti-competitive?

[fustakrakich]

How? Just because nobody is competing? What's stopping them? Europe always has been a haven for bureaucrats. We could learn from this. Instead we build on it.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hate EU look at Windows phone Edge browser or Cortana won't work without Bing. Android is the most open mobile OS out on the market.

If EU want to address the issue of Android just make all android phone rooted This way user is total control and don't have run into the problem of rooting can brick the phone, void the warranty of the phone, and prevent receiving future android update.

FOSS Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that oxymoron? and so is chanting Oracle should get $9B

Internet sarcasm is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The surplus a monopoly can extract is limited by its market's barriers to entry (what makes it a monopoly). Many jurisdictions have deals with telcos to prevent competition, and healthcare costs are inflated by doctor medallions and drug patents. All the monopolies you just listed are explicitly government-created.

Re:Internet sarcasm is stupid

[NotInHere]

All the monopolies you just listed are explicitly government-created.

So you seriously suggest that the only way a company should be able to compete with a cable provider is to dig up the whole earth and lay a second piece of fiber next to the already existing and working one, just in order to connect a home? Don't you think this is a waste? And last but not least, somebody would have to pay for the second set of fibers, and that's (as always) the customers.

About drug patents: they are unfortunate, but they are required. The most important principle of medicine is that it should do more good than it does harm. In order to ensure this, giant studies need to be conducted before a drug gets approved. They cost billions of dollars per drug.
This is a big investment the drug companies have to make, and they won't do it if the moment they get the drug approved to be safe a competitor can copy the drug and make more money. Yes, we need to find a way to make those giant studies cheaper, and once we do, we should shorten the life span of those patents to match the development, but unfortunately there is no way around these government granted monopolies. At least for drugs, software patents are a different matter (most of them are just trivial patents, and those which aren't would have been invented anyway, just due to the big pressure that's in the market; esp. there is no big giant approval process to get software onto devices, AND software is already protected by copyright, and lock-in mechanisms).

Also note that the drug patents are limited by time. Once the patent expires, the drug is available for everyone at a comparatively low price.

Re:Internet sarcasm is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

We could conceivably tax all drug manufacturers and apply the tax to a public reaserch institution who's output is in the public domain.

The likely consequence would be that innovation in new drugs is prioritized based on the prestige a success would bring the researchers, rather than profit from royalties, and most drug manufactures compete on price and quality of their products rather than exclusivity of new treatments.

That may not be a net improvement as while it would tend to favor cures over treatments, it would also tend to favor dead end research on big ticket targets like AIDS or Cancer at the expense of more achievable targets like the HPV vaccine. It's also probable that the total volume of research would decrease as more efficient drug manufacturers will mean less profits to tax and thus less funding.

Re:Internet sarcasm is stupid

[NotInHere]

Usually, the dead end research is done by the publicly funded institutions, and the more achievable targets are done by the drug companies. But research is not the major cost driver for the drug manufacturers, its the studies to find out whether a human survives a drug, combinations with other drugs, etc. You don't want to give a drug to thousands of people and then find out 1 year later that the drug causes them to die. It starts to get fun when there is a media war fought with the manufacturer trying to deny the harmful effect of the drug, etc. All this has happened in the past already, these regulations are in place for a reason.

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[Shimbo]

I'm sure someone is going to come along with some conspiracy and collusion theory as to why I'm wrong

I don't think much refutation is required for "Google is only doing the same sort of things that got Coke fined for monopoly abuse".

When will they go after Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if they also went after the (far worse) iOS in this regard, as they're far, far worse (and openly so). Being the smaller offender isn't a shield in a veritable duopoly.

Not Abuse

[dkman]

1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

That's a good thing. It creates a uniform user experience. You are free to install other search and browsers, just don't make them default.

2. preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

OK, that one is B.S.

3. giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

What's the harm there? Users are still able to install whatever they want.

How do they feel about developers not being able to put programs that compete with Apple built in apps onto the app store? Though I believe that's more lenient than it used to be. I'm still annoyed that I can't get Wifi Analyzer in iOS because it uses an undocumented API.

Florian Mueller

[advocate_one]

ah yes, that well known Microsoft/Oracle anti-Google shill...

Re:Once again, the Europeans are going off the cli

[iampiti]

As for #2, hello, phones being sold running Cyanogen and others based on AOSP derivatives, but they don't have a big market share yet, or maybe ever.

It's not well explained in the summary, but one of the conditions when licensing the Play Store for inclusion in your Android phones is that you can't release phones with Android forks. I don't know the exact wording but you get the idea. So #2 is actually true, it's just not clearly explained in the summary

Can they fuck off already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't someone sue all of these assholes for wasting the Courts time?

Strange historical reference

[Anonymous Coward]

> Let them have Bing

So Bing = brioche? And Brin = Marie Antoinette, or what?