Slashdot Mirror
Google May Face Another Record EU Fine, This Time Over Android (itwire.com)
troublemaker_23 shares a report from ITWire: The EU is contemplating another record fine against Google over how it pays and limits mobile phone providers who use the search company's Android mobile operating system and app store. Reuters reported that a decision could be expected by the end of the year if the opinion of a team of experts, set up by the EU to obtain a second opinion, agree with the decisions reached by the team that has worked on the case. The report quoted Richard Windsor, an independent financial analyst, as saying that the Android fine was likely to hurt Google more than the search fine or the verdict in a third EU probe over AdSense. "If Google was forced to unbundle Google Play from its other Digital Life services, handset makers and operators would be free to set whatever they like by default potentially triggering a decline in the usage of Google's services," he said.
In the chargesheet, issued on April 20, 2016, the European Commission said Google had breached EU anti-trust rules by:
-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;
-Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
-Giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
In the chargesheet, issued on April 20, 2016, the European Commission said Google had breached EU anti-trust rules by:
-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;
-Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
-Giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
They have to make up the money they will lose when the UK leaves somehow.
so when will they go after the apple store being it only works on the iphone and apple products???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Seriously - Why no mention of apple - surely they should be going for apples jugular given they don't allow anyone else to use their devices, *OR* install competing stores on them
At least with googles system you can disable the bits you don't want, *AND* install other app stores. You can't do that on apple.
If you want a phone that isn't a consumerist piece of trash that you'll throw in the garbage in two years, you need to go with Apple. I don't know why Google fanbois hate the environment so much, but they should get some ethics and some taste.
and not even allowing real browsers but safari. No, themes doesn't count as browsers.
Check your history. They did get fined.
I believe that forcing manufacturers to include a pretty big number of Google apps if they want to include any of them (including some everyone essentially wants like the Play store, Gmail and Maps) is a bit abusive.
The agreement Google forces upon manufacturers that want to release Android phones also states that they can't release any device bearing an Android-derived OS. That is, Amazon can release their tablets with an Android-derived OS, bug Samsung can't do so since they do release devices with Google's apps.
Anyway, this is much worse for Google than the issue with unfair positioning of their shopping service since Android was essentially developed to promote their services and gather user data which, in turn, feeds Google's primary business of selling ads tailored to the user.
An alternative to the forced bundling of apps and services would be that the manufacturers paid for the privilege of using the closed source bits of Android and Google's apps.
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;
Bundling. Naughty, naughty.
-Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
Really? I thought they were just denying them the use of their trademarks for the purpose.
-Giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
Exclusively? Really? Or just not on the home screen?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except apple is the sole creator of their devices, as well as the fact that iOS is closed source.
"Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code; " Great. Let's just fragment Android OS even more. Idiots... The other items, I can maybe agree with.
-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;
-Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
-Giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
This all sounds like Microsoft and the browser wars all over again. If this is indeed the case, Google should be punished "hard."
Here's a great article about why this makes no sense (basically, regulating a market that doesn't need it):
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/...
Isn't it obvious, the EU regulators are a bunch of Apple shills and fanbois.
EU should be ignored until they sort their own house out. They are currently in the process of pushing trough the Monsanto / Bayer mega-merger. An obvious monopoly. Until they can stop being so hypocritical they should be ignored. The only reason they are doing this? They need the money. Also what's happened with the VW scandal?
Well, there is a free version without any of the Google stuff if the phone manufacturers don't want Google...
uhm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
... but this is what is looks like when your government actually cares about protecting its citizens. Microsoft was first, now Google, other abusers to follow.
Forced bundling, undeletable apps, different pricing per region, forcing out competition, regional locking, all will be taken care of for EU citizens. As a result the capitalist model is working well causing competition which results for example in low prices for food, medication, insurance, internet, TV subscriptions, no caps on fixed line etc.
But please, don't believe me; there is already a considerable influx of American scientists and retirees, so don't come. It's horrible over here!
Posting as AC because I value my privacy.
Probably when Apple has a dominant market position, and uses that dominant market position to get a head start in another sector, but they don't, so... probably not any time soon.
I agree - I was always surprised that they are doing it, and that they think they can get away with it. It is a very clear example of anti-competitive practices - nearly a textbook example.
Good to see that they are not getting away with it.
And they will get fined again, because they keep pushing IE beyond what is acceptable.
In Europe they're at least attempting to serve notice that the rights and interests of individual citizens outweigh those of the corporations. I find it interesting that Europe, with its long history of monarchies and empires, seems to be doing a better job of defending Joe Average's rights than is America, with its history of individualism and personal freedom.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Excuse me, I'm ROFLing!!
Let's see the EU take on their own megacompanies--then your argument might have some sway.
so when will they go after the apple store being it only works on the iphone and apple products???
When Apple gets to 90% of the smartphone market.
But a number of other Countries exiting the EU or likely to.
So the Need that $$$$$ to sustain something that may very well be unsustainable,
It seems to me that in addition to Google, that the carriers were complicit in this and got benefit out of it as well. I would hope that the EU commission would go after them in addition to Google.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
I'm not sure I follow how they used their dominant market position with the iPod to unfairly give themselves a competitive advantage in the phone space. Perhaps you could make some kind of stretch by looking at their DRM for music and movies, but they jettisoned DRM on music shortly after the iPhone came out and other marketplaces were selling DRM free music that you could put on your iDevice. Their market position in TV/movies was never as good as music, and with apps there're plenty of ways to get other services' content on an iPhone.
The one place Apple was punished was in eBooks where they got hit with a fine because of market collusion. I don't know how successful their book sales are, but I don't think they've come close to dethroning Amazon from their leadership position. Otherwise, the iPod didn't give Apple a market advantage with the iPhone. At best it gave them some experience working with smaller devices, building supply chains to produce millions of devices, and working with various component manufacturers that would be iPhone suppliers. Beyond that all the iPod did was help build Apple's brand, taking it from a company on the brink of death or irrelevance to that of a company making fancy consumer products.
Contract, if you make an Android derived device you have violated the conditions of the contract and you lose access to the Play Store and all of the "with Google" apps and all of the API libraries that use Google resources. Frankly I'm a bit surprised by this ruling, Google makes the base Android OS available to anyone, they only require that you follow certain rules if you wish to have your users use their resources. To me this seems perfectly fine. They even allow the users to set and change the default applications for any action which is exactly the remedy the EU used against MS when they went after them so this is some serious goalpost moving (how exactly are you supposed to avoid these money grabs if you follow the guidance from the last ruling and still get dinged?).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Does anyone think it is a coincidence all these huge fines in recent years are against American companies. EU wouldn't do this to their own companies like they do to Apple and Google and other American companies. Now they are going after a literally free product with a fine. That is amazing.
Does iPhone have monopoly power in any market?
Is Apple forcing handset manufacturers to not also build using some other competing platform?
Is Apple forcing handset manufacturers to bundle Apple branded search (and as a result, ad serving tech) as a precondition to getting the app store?
Google has two products with monopoly power in Europe- Android and Search. Each is being used to reinforce the other and to keep competitors out. How can you possibly not see the problem? This one is WAY overdue. The comparison shopping issue was nothing compared to this.
Though that's true, remember that manufacturers aren't required to install all of the Google services on their devices if their device is based on Android. The only limitation a manufacturer is subject to if they don't install Google services is they aren't allowed to call it Android, nor are they allow to use any of the Android marketing trademarks. That's it. Hence why cyanogen mod wasn't ever called "android" even though it was as close as one could get to "pure android".
The entire complaint really is, if you don't include Google services, you have to build your own brand, and that's not fair. It's a pretty stupid complaint.
Correct, and that is one of the issues. Phone makers aren't allowed to use it on any device if they want the "official" Android with app store on any other device. Very clear misuse of monopoly power.
Utterly stupid reply - begs the question who modded this up...
It's like saying, when will they go after Bosch, because their coffee machines only run their own system?!
If Google created and ran a mostly closed-source OS on their own hardware, then they won't be in any violation, except perhaps not allowing other browsers on the OS. Thus, since Apple's iOS in mostly closed-source and runs on their OWN platform, and they don't give out iOS to any other manufacturer, Apple isn't in violation of anti-trust laws.
Exactly the same reason why Microsoft was in violation of anti-trust, because they give out their software to other hardware/manufacturers (OEMs) to utilise and sell on, however, they go even further by forcing the manufacturer to disable the hardware/software in such a way (or usually based on a contract) that the OEM can't sell their systems with software from other providers, such as BeOS/Netscape/Linux/etc.
Oh well, I guess that what it takes to do business in the EU. Play by the rules, pay the correct taxes, and especially pay the right person. But if you think about it paying a €1B fine for making €100B is just the cost of doing business in those countries.
"Then how does Microsoft get away with doing the same thing as well even though they're not the sole creator? In fact, they go one further by forbidding the user from changing the default search engine on their platform, in addition to giving it away for free. This whole lawsuit was spurred by Microsoft's "FairSearch" campaign over exactly that issue; this is all about making more people use Bing."/quote?
by their platform being essentially dead.
Google has the dominant smartphone operating system, that's why this matters..
Apple gets away with it by.. well I guess they don't require even a special search provider. but mostly Apple gets away with requiring safari as default on ios is quite simply because it has such a small fraction of overall sales.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You'd think after Venezuela companies would learn that it's risky doing business in an area where a socialist government sees their earnings simply as a piggy-bank to be raided whenever their own shitty economic fallacies collapse? When the kleptocracy says "they have many billions, they won't miss a few" it's time to take your toys and go home.
Ultimately, such economies are going to have to face that either they play nice with the rest of the world, or the end result is that they're going to be shut out and have to depend on their local crappy replacements for the goods and services no longer available to them from better companies elsewhere in the world. Galileo: only 33 years after GPS! Quaero instead of Google. Nokia instead of iPhone or Samsung. Sailfish instead of Android? Enjoy.
-Styopa
Microsoft will be tested on how hard they're willing to defend the Win32 platform if ReactOS ever gets to be 'good enough'. Seems like at the moment they want to avoid the community backlash, while nudging people towards UWP.
Android is free. If they do not like, use something else. Or write their own OS.
Wonder what companies paid the EU off to go after Google.
By the way, I do not use Android. But I find the companies attacking Google in EU as pathetic leeches.
The vast majority of people I know only use Word, with a large segment using Word + Excel. Yet the smallest version of Office you can get bundles (i.e. forces you to pay for) Powerpoint and OneNote to get those two.
Companies release their products as bundles all the time. If Google had been leveraging their search dominance to Android dominance, I could sorta understand this. But they're not - they're doing it the other way around. If you want the Play Store, you have to install the Google suite of Android apps which includes the Google search bar. Anyone who is already a user of Google search can continue to use it in a Google-free version of Android like Cyanogenmod in a browser, just like they do on the desktop. Google's version of Android is basically AOSP + their bundle.
The second charge doesn't even make sense. The EU is pretty much telling Google "you would have been better off if you hadn't released Android as open source." Way to destroy any incentive for any company to ever use or release anything as open source again. In the future companies will only release the absolute minimum source code as required by licensing, preferably not a fully functioning product (like AOSP) so no regulatory agency can ever blame them for a derivative product's failure.
The third charge has merit if true. No kickbacks putting a finger on the scales of the market's behavior.
That would be a hard sell because Microsoft has less of a monopoly on office suites than it ever has had since the rise of Microsoft Office.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
After a few months of having to go to the library (remember those?) and look things up on paper - or worse, using Bing, Europeans will be clamoring to have the government let Google back in.
They even allow the users to set and change the default applications for any action which is exactly the remedy the EU used against MS when they went after them
Not only that, but Google is making zero attempt to prevent handset manufacturers from bundling whatever apps they want to bundle. They're just trying to get them to include their apps. Microsoft was making deals to prevent OEMs from bundling other browsers with systems with preinstalled Windows.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, being that the EU hasn't exactly been very buddy-buddy with Apple already, you think that if they weren't violating some regulation somewhere that they wouldn't go after Apple?
Just because you don't like the iPhone doesn't mean it is in violation of EU laws.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The big part is that you also have to run your own app store, and because many key publishers of applications for Android haven't shown themselves willing to publish anywhere but Google Play Store, this leads to customer confusion.
Apart from the unpopular Motorola Rokr E1 and Slvr L7, Apple's iPhone was the only phone that could play iTunes purchases. iTunes Music Store didn't drop FairPlay DRM until a couple years after the iPhone was out.
it would have to be argued that they're successful in promoting Edge (IE is no longer their focus) and in turn making it difficult for other web browsers to gain market share.
Windows 10 S runs only applications from Windows Store, and Windows Store has only Edge and Edge reskins. I concede that Windows 10 S is not a monopoly as of third quarter 2017, as it's targeted to the education market and not yet dominant in that market.
But there are rumors that Microsoft plans to replace Windows 10 Home on mass-market laptops and desktops with Windows 10 S, requiring users to pay to upgrade to Windows 10 Pro in order to run any other browser. If Microsoft goes this rumored route, it should be straightforward to show that Microsoft is using its Windows monopoly to push Edge.
Edge says: "Hmmm...can't reach this page"
Besides, even if Edge could reach browserchoice.eu, what would it display for Windows 10 S, which can't run any browser other than EdgeHTML wrappers?
How about you remove your head from your shoulders? It's not as if anything useful is done with it, anyway.
Apple lacks market power because the usage share of iOS is far lower than that of Android.
Like iOS, Windows 10 S lacks market power because it lacks usage share.
Seems like at the moment they want to avoid the community backlash, while nudging people towards UWP.
I'll believe that once Visual Studio goes UWP.
is how Google never gets rapped over for their privacy violations and secret data farming. Only through cartel laws.
Feels like Al Capone getting canned for tax evasion.
Well, it's not 'all of the Google services'. My ZTE Axon 7 came with a bunch of proprietary ZTE apps - including a calendar (which I assume is one of the Google services) and an SMS app. The ZTE stuff couldn't be uninstalled or even disabled until the latest update after users complained really loudly.
My worry is that once OEM's start being able to bundle their own services into their phones, they'll start trying to grab bits of Google's search or ad revenue - bundling in their own inferior versions that can't be disabled. That'd truly suck. Yeah, I suppose it'd be nice to get AOSP with the Play store - and everything else optional. It'd also be nice to require that phones be unlockable so that the whole OS can be replaced and/or upgraded without input from the OEM. Now that would be a definite benefit to the users. But be wary of simply allowing OEM's to shoehorn in their own, crappy bloatware to replace Google's and not letting you use anything else. OEM support for their devices is lousy enough - and Android is fragmented enough - as it is...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
it went out the window as soon as Eric Schmidt was installed as CEO. You know, Mr. "if you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
And of course the entire executive staff at Google from CEO down went all-in on Hillary Clinton, the most evil politician to grace our national government in a long time. Not only did they personally donate money to the DNC as private individuals, Google the company itself pretty much did everything it could to pull for Hillary without drawing the ire of the FEC.
If she had become president, there's no doubt she would pull out all the stops and make every backroom deal necessary to make Google's Euro problem go away. But she lost, they bet on the wrong horse.
Now Google might still get off lightly. Trump is a dealmaker and he's been known to make deals with former enemies, so it's entirely possible he could help Google with their Euro problems if Google gives him something valuable. Maybe Google could promise to help him win reelection in 2020 (or at least stop pulling so hard for DNC like they did in 2016).
Yeah, that's probably never going to happen..
Microsoft had it's own anti trust lawsuit about the Internet explorer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik....
That may not be far off if the EU wants to outlaw Google's smartphone business model, which is to give away Android for free and to make money off of web search prioritization.
This will be a lesson to anyone who wants to try to monetize an open source model.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
1) Apple does not make their own hardware. Apple doesn't own any fabs/foundries.
Apple somewhat designs their own hardware from the outside in. Form over function. They decide on a form factor, style, etc. then go shopping for shit to put in it. They pay enough to get custom designs for many actual components (such as batteries, touchpad sensors, etc.), and semi-custom designs for others (CPUs, GPUs, memory). Still, many other components are nothing more than the standard design with a firmware tweaked for Apple (such as the displays, SSDs, etc.). And of course, guess who Apple fights with on one front and tries to squeeze out of the other? Samsung used to supply storage, displays, and I think memory for many iThings. Then Apple had a tizzy over suits in a separate area and retaliated by switching to LG and other vendors.
Apple's actual processors were not designed by Apple. They were just IP purchased from other companies (some of whom Apple has since purchased) and have been iterated on ever since. And yet they beat the SHIT out of the ARM trash Qualcomm and Samsung put out. (To be fair to them, however, they're hampered by the disaster that is Android.)
2) So what if it is? There's handset market share and then there's "mobile" market share, including the store revenues. Apple makes almost all the app money. Besides, Apple was taking nearly everything from the music market, the app market, and the handset market just a few years ago. They absolutely used their success with the iPod and iTunes and iPhone and App Store to further the success of their own products across different markets and to lock out competition.
3) Speculation ahoy! But so what if they are? If you commit a crime, do you think the jury will care if you tell them "Man, I'm only here because my neighbors reported me and urged the state to prosecute!"?
But in this case, the handset companies can sell their systems with software from other providers!
Nothing technically locks them down. The bundling is saying "Playstore and Google Search and the Android trademark is Google proprietary, if you want one you must get them all."
Google could probably get away with it if they charged money for Play Store, and credited that money back if loading Google Search.
This will be a lesson to anyone who wants to try to monetize an open source model.
And the lesson would be that if you try to do that, you shouldn't follow up with closed-source apps and strong-arming tactics from a dominant market position?
-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;
I don't care what's pre-installed, as long as I can remove it, or at least disable it. Defaults I could care even less about.
-Preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
This one's ugly IMO.
-Giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
I don't see any issue with this. I can easily use Google Search to go set another search provider.
I was OK with MS installing IE by default. I used it one time to go download something else. The problem I had was that I couldn't remove it.
I refuse to sign
Google can't possibly manage how apps approved for the Play Store will work, such as from a security perspective, on every possible variation of code from the AOSP.
The official Android means it uses Google's Android trademark, which means it's Google's product - having competitors products using the Android trademark would be confusing to users.
Google freely gives away code that cost them probably in the billions of dollars to create, and they're the bad guy? They've created smartphones that are available to people in all walks of life, and they're the bad guy?
Actually they can't. If a manufacturer agrees to the "open handset alliance" agreements, which is required in order to gain access to the google play store, then they are prohibited from manufacturing any handsets with an android fork.
Have you forgotten that the iPhone too was once the dominant smartphone around? For many years after its release, before the rise of Android, the iPhone was the only game in town, and owned the market even more than Android does now. Same with iPads, which arguably still dominate the tablet market.
And at the time they were even more restrictive and locked down. Where was the EU then?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
they deserve it just for the thousand of times pressing the home button for a split second opens the dammed Google search app, which is useless and impossible to disable.
true. they did that every step. but even on that apple sucks.
they make iphone owners buy new charges and extra cables every time.
they changed the headphone plug standard for the world when iphone launched just to get a fee from every headphone manufacturer (and with that, free insight into their Financials, which helped them acquire a few brands)
they are trying the headphones thing again with a dumb bt4 pseudo standard additions like it's a new groundbreaking thing.
they forced their way into silicon valley development machines by forcing you to use xcode only. that one was genius.
We might see some good come out of this, if the ruling ends the safetynet anti-consumer nonsense from Google.
If they are forced to allow play store to run on AOSP derivatives, they should also be forced to drop restrictions on installing apps on custom ROMs, unlocked bootloaders and rooted devices. All of these are legal in Europe, so discriminating against them should be forbidden and fined.
I'm only afraid that this commissioner is setting her agenda more on Microsoft's wishes than on consumer needs...
When was that? The iPhone had less market share than both Symbian and Blackberry when it had more market share than Android. Android surpassed the iPhone in Q2 2010, at the moment when smartphones became relevant.
I don't think the iPhone ever passed 23% market share world wide for a quarter. And this is because iPhone sales peak in the quarter after the release. The yearly average is lower.
Fair point, Symbian and RIM were still strong then in some markets, but in others the iPhone was definitely king - such as this 78% share in Western Europe in late 2009, or 50% share worldwide early 2010.
The iPhone certainly had dominant mindshare back then, but I will concede that its peak marketshare perhaps didn't last long enough to overly concern EU regulators.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Your numbers are bogus. They are not smartphone sales. The iPhone never reached 78% in Western Europe or 50% world wide.
As I said, the iPhone peaked arround 23% world wide and this is for a single quarter.