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.

Comments

Re:Excellent

[ganjadude]

so when will they go after the apple store being it only works on the iphone and apple products???

Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[guruevi]

Apparently Google is willing to foot the bill or less able to pull out of the market. Apple and Microsoft has enough clout, if they just threaten to pull out of Europe or pass on the cost to their educational and government customers, the fines are quickly forgotten. These things are just a political game, it's pure protectionism.

Google's market is much more fractured and less important to continuity of businesses. There are plenty of other search engines and Android and their ads are not just sold by Google, but by hundreds if not thousands of smaller parties. Even if Google threatened to pull out of the market, they would be doing enough residual business to still qualify for the fine.

They also need the European market much more than Apple or Microsoft combined and have little to no leverage over their customers.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[Luthair]

The manufacturers could use AOSP.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[ChunderDownunder]

Yes a phone maker could go AOSP with f-droid or their own store but consumers will expect Google Play whether it's a Samsung, Moto, LG or whatever.

The issue is setting defaults to Google services and baking Google bloatware in the stock ROM as a pre-condition to allow access to Play store.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[Holi]

So now we are going to punish Google for what consumers expect? Basically what you have described is that Google already has options that meet the EU's requirements, just nobody wants them be cause the lack the very thing the EU is bitching about. I guess the EU just wants Google's money.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[thegarbz]

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.

As much as I disagree with this verdict the answer to your question is obvious: Apple iOS, it's associated products and services, and all its restrictions are only available on Apple devices. So by limiting what they do they have no one to affect but themselves.

Now as to why I disagree with this verdict is that Google Play services is optional. AOSP is available for 3rd parties to do with what they want. And before someone cries about the binary bits and things that are only available in the "real" Android, it's worth remembering how many devices actually run this without custom modification in the first place: close to zero% outside of what Google sells.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[MachineShedFred]

Because:

1. Apple does not have a market share significant enough to exert pressure on other markets (e.g. a monopoly)
2. Apple is not using that monopoly they don't have (see #1) to exert pressure on other markets
3. Apple does not have OEMs that they have forced to use other Apple services (see #2) in order to get access to the Apple service with the significant market share that they don't have (again, see #1).

See where I'm going with this? You can't expect anti-trust action against someone that doesn't have a monopoly. Stop being a fandroid and recognize that Google is being a bad actor here, and explicitly running foul of anti-trust regulations in the EU.

And also don't declare me to be some Apple fan - I tossed my iPad in favor of an Nvidia Shield K1 and never looked back.

Re:Why this when Apples sysem is WORSE?

[MachineShedFred]

The problem with your argument: Apple doesn't license their OS to anyone. iPhones are Apple devices, manufactured for Apple by a contracted manufacturer. This is vastly different from an OEM that licenses the software.

Because Apple makes and markets the whole thing either through contract suppliers or in-house development, they don't have contracts with OEMs forcing those OEMs to do anything that is a potential violation of EU antitrust regulations.

The one point you have is about the forced use of the WebKit rendering engine, but because WebKit isn't a monopoly in any browser market (browser market share is measured across platforms), there is no monopoly to abuse. Don't like using WebKit? Apple has a minor market share in smartphones (at least, that's what people around here are always bleating about), so you are free to pick from the other >80% of handsets on the market.

Re:Excellent

[fred6666]

and not even allowing real browsers but safari. No, themes doesn't count as browsers.

Sigh.

[drinkypoo]

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?

Re:Sigh.

[drinkypoo]

What happened to you? Why did you have this moment of clarity in your mind that is normally clouded with collectivist ideology? Google is a giant corporation that has money, so obviously it has to be raided for money by governments, everything else is an excuse.

Corporations should be raided for money by governments, when they are avoiding paying their fair share of the tax burden. That, however, does not preclude fair treatment.

Re: Sigh.

[dunkelfalke]

Corporations exist on a whim of the government, it is so simple even you should be able to understand that. That is the problem with the free market extremists like you - you want all the profits, but no personal responsibility. Accept unlimited personal liability for every business transaction and the government will treat you differently.

Sounds like we're back to the 90s

[bogaboga]

-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."

Wired article still relevant

[colonslash]

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...

[mschaffer]

Isn't it obvious, the EU regulators are a bunch of Apple shills and fanbois.

Scary for American readers....

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Re:Scary for American readers....

[colonslash]

'Helping consumers' in this way is why the EU doesn't have a Google, Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook. These companies have created a tremendous amount of consumer value, but they couldn't ever grow in an environment like that.

Re:Scary for American readers....

[0ld_d0g]

The EU says that companies should not be allowed to create such "tremendous amount of consumer value" at the expense of shitting on their citizens in other ways (privacy, surveillance, bundling, exploiting labor, etc).

Re:Scary for American readers....

[thegarbz]

You're talking about 3 of the most hated companies for just what part of the consumer they actually "value".

The thing is, most of these companies created most of their consumer value before they grew into abusive pieces of crap. Note that it's not the size of the company that is under fire in the EU, but rather a set of very VERY specific decisions about very isolated parts of the business.

Re:Scary for American readers....

[houghi]

Hahahaha. Is this still the same Slashdort where Microsoft is one of the good guys? Really? And The EU is not "For the customers" it is, if anything "for the people". Many times those are customers, but they can also be employees.

And how fast you forget if you think Microsoft was good. Amazon basically crushes many other stores and abuses its emplyees (e.g. the people who work there) and facebook breaks more privacy laws than it has members.

So indeed, they could never have grown here in Europe. The sad thing is that they where allowed to do so in the US.

Because it is NOT about the consumer, it is about the people.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:As it should be

[Chas]

No they're not.

They're simply going after large, cash-saturated companies to wring a payday out of them.
The EU could not give less of a shit about "individual rights and interests" if they tried.

Re:Excellent

[dnaumov]

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.

Re:Excellent

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:no competing OS

[afidel]

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?).

EU trying to take money from American Companies

[SmaryJerry]

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.

Re:How is that any different from Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Are they going to break up Microsoft Office too?

[Solandri]

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.

Google should geoblock the EU

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:Excellent

[Rob Y.]

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...

Re:Excellent

[Namarrgon]

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?