Slashdot Mirror
EU Regulators Fine Google Record $5 Billion in Android Case (reuters.com)
The European Union hit Alphabet's Google with a record antitrust fine of $5.06 billion on Monday, a decision that could loosen the company's grip on its biggest growth engine: mobile phones. From a report:The European Commission ordered Google to end the illegal conduct within 90 days or face additional penalties of up to 5 percent of parent Alphabet's average daily worldwide turnover. The EU enforcer also dismissed Google's arguments citing Apple as a competitor to Android devices, saying the iPhone maker does not sufficiently constrain Google because of its higher prices and switching costs for users. The European Commission finding is the most consequential decision made in its eight-year antitrust battle with Google. The fine significantly outstrips the $2.8B charge Brussels imposed on the company last year for favoring its own site in comparison shopping searches. The decision takes aim at a core part of Google's business strategy over the past decade, outlawing restrictions on its Android operating system that allegedly entrenched Google's dominance in online search at a time when consumers were moving from desktop to mobile devices. Android is the operating system used in more than 80 per cent of the world's smartphones and is vital to the group's future revenues as more users rely on mobile gadgets for search services. Google has denied wrongdoing.
The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
2. made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;
and 3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
A number of companies, and startups that compete with Google have weighed in on the development. Open Markets Institute Executive Director Barry Lynn, said, "We hope U.S. enforcers of competition law will learn from and follow this example in both of these cases." Consumer Watchdog Director John Simpson, said, "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google's monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat." Yelp SVP Public Policy Luther Lowe, said, "The European Commission's ruling of additional illegal conduct by Google on smartphones is another important step in restoring competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the digital economy; the EU must ensure complete compliance from a recalcitrant Google and the U.S. must take action to provide American consumers with similar protections."
Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, said, Commissioner Vestager's ruling today not only enhances competition and investment opportunities in Europe, but it will have a cascading effect into U.S. markets, where antitrust enforcers have so far failed to take meaningful action." Privacy startup Disconnect CEO Casey Oppenheim, said, "Other players in the digital ecosystem may finally be able to fairly compete with Google, giving meaningful choice to consumers."
The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
2. made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;
and 3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
A number of companies, and startups that compete with Google have weighed in on the development. Open Markets Institute Executive Director Barry Lynn, said, "We hope U.S. enforcers of competition law will learn from and follow this example in both of these cases." Consumer Watchdog Director John Simpson, said, "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google's monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat." Yelp SVP Public Policy Luther Lowe, said, "The European Commission's ruling of additional illegal conduct by Google on smartphones is another important step in restoring competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the digital economy; the EU must ensure complete compliance from a recalcitrant Google and the U.S. must take action to provide American consumers with similar protections."
Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, said, Commissioner Vestager's ruling today not only enhances competition and investment opportunities in Europe, but it will have a cascading effect into U.S. markets, where antitrust enforcers have so far failed to take meaningful action." Privacy startup Disconnect CEO Casey Oppenheim, said, "Other players in the digital ecosystem may finally be able to fairly compete with Google, giving meaningful choice to consumers."
Most of Google's cash is in Ireland. The repoman will simply force the bank to hand over the money.
I'm so tired of this anti-EU bullshit. You really need to find a new scapegoat for the failure of your local politicians.
In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that power.
Any power that is currently not in the hands of national governments and can be overruled by directives is not in their hands because all governments of all member states previously voted to take away that power and give it to the EU to the mutual benefit of all member states. What's even worse about posts like yours is that the people who criticize the EU now for not being democratic enough are exactly the same people who in the past ensured that the EU has this structure, most notably the UK, whose main goal has always been to make the European Parliament as weak as possible, prevent a EU wide defence structure, not having a EU president, etc. The European Parliament is relatively powerless and commissioners appointed by the governments of member states (and voted for by European Parliament, which directly represents all EU citizens) have a relatively high amount of power because member countries wanted to make sure that the European Parliament has less to say than national parliaments.
And what's bizarre about complaining about the monopoly of search engines so late? By design, the commissions mostly become active in such matters after the complaints have reached national level and the whole process takes time.
In a nutshell, quit those silly complaints about the EU. Rather complain about the local politicians like Margaret Thatcher who designed it that way and opt for local politicians that want to give the EU Parliament more power. Remember, the EU parliament is directly voted for by the citizens of the member states.
This is not a question of technology, and the EU has a long history of protecting consumers. The last sentence shows you don't understand how the EU works, which makes your desire to criticise it baffling.
Google are where they are because they've built a solid reputation with consumers, not because they did something shady.
... except when they did, and eventually the case was raised within EU, and carefully examined, and yes, found to be shady, and a fine was decided on.
It's not against the law to run a good business and end up in a monopoly situation. But monopolies are generally not a good thing because they come with a special set of powers. So we have a special set of rules governing them. If you run a monopoly and exploit certain of these powers, then you may end up facing the consequences.
There's nothing new in this.
Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian.
EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldnâ(TM)t be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.
They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere.
And this is illegal under EU antitrust rules.
Todayâ(TM)s ruling states:
Google has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks).
In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork.
The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
No, you can't. The spyware they put in isn't optional -- because it's not opt-in on the device, it's done via the services you use with Android. Also, you seem to be missing the point where the previous CEO of Google said his job "was to get right up to the creepy line, but not to cross it". http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-googles-policy-is-to-get-right-up-to-the-creepy-line-and-not-cross-it-2010-10?IR=T
Apple isn't a saint, but Google is a piece of shit.
Defaults always win. 99% of the users do not install anything else on their phones. Besides try to uninstall the a random google app. If its in the system part of the phone you do not have a chance, unless you root the phone, which is 0.0001% of the users. This was the same problem with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. Google wouldn't exists without that previous decision.
Your democratically elected government at the time made this choice, as was the choice of your democratically elected government whether to leave the EU and/or whether there should have been a referendum about it or not.
In your case the choice to join the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum was made by the conservative government of Sir John Major, which also negotiated important aspects of the treaty for the UK.
You know, it's not as if this information is kind of secret, you can look it up yourself next time.
The issue is not having the best, most popular product. It's forced bundling and cross-promotion.
With Android you need to agree to make Google the default and only search engine on the phone if you want the Play Store. Since consumers want the play store manufacturers can't supply any other search engines. Amazon tried its own app store but outside its own devices it mostly failed, as did most Amazon devices except their cheap tablets.
Chinese manufacturers can't ship Play or Google search anyway because they are blocked in China. Their international models have them though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I've been developing Android devices for many years and can tell you from first hand experience, Google has been getting away with a lot of anti-competitive practices and favoritism. Unless you are one of the top 5 brands in the world, they simply will not talk to you. No matter how hard you try or show willingness to pay, they will not "certify" Android devices from anyone but their close circle of suppliers, with whom they have very complex agreements. This is why a very high percentage of devices are sold without the Play store pre-installed. It also blocks other things from working, such as full support for the DRM used by Netflix, HBO, and many other VOD apps. You are given the freedom of choice to choose any brand, as long as it is the ones they allow you to choose from.
More than the average US state, they are. But you can't have your cake and eat it, too, either you're a union or you go solo. Or you can of course do what Poland, Hungary and some others try now, leech off the EU when there's grants to be had but when it's time to stand together during a problem, it's everyone for himself.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That is incorrect. Google is saying that if you want to sell Android phones, they must come with the Google apps as well. They do not say that companies can not sell products with another operating system on them, which WOULD be against the laws in most countries. The real key is that many features in Android itself are tied back into Google Services. You cut that out, and many things just won't work. People saying that Android is horrible and Google is horrible because their no-name phone that had the Google apps and services removed can't do this or that is a valid reason for Google to insist the apps be on there.