Slashdot Mirror


Google App Suite Costs as Much as $40 Per Phone Under New EU Android Deal (theverge.com)

Android manufacturers will have to pay Google a surprisingly high cost in Europe in order to include Google's Play Store and other mobile apps on their devices, according to documents obtained by The Verge. From the report: A confidential fee schedule shows costs as high as $40 per device to install the "Google Mobile Services" suite of apps, which includes the Google Play Store. The new fees vary depending on country and device type, and it would apply to devices activated on or after February 1st, 2019. But phone manufacturers may not actually have to shoulder that cost: Google is also offering separate agreements to cover some or all of the licensing costs for companies that choose to install Chrome and Google search on their devices as well, according to a person familiar with the terms. Google declined to comment.

120 comments

  1. But ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... I thought regulation didn't cost anything, and you could just mandate goodness for free?

    1. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess our freedom is just starting to get its own nice little price tag.
      I wonder how much the count will go up before the number finally settles...

    2. Re:But ... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

      Not your freedom. Your lack of it. You are the product and this is just a corporation negotiating your price with other corporations. Don't expect a phone to come without Google tax and give you a choice.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess they didn't expect Google to act like petulant little children trying to get revenge.

      Carriers should just tell Google to fuck off and start including F-Droid and/or Amazon on their devices. Google services are privacy invading jokes anyway and all of my devices run very smoothly without any Google apps polluting them.

    4. Re:But ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom was never free. Everything has a price.

      The price for liberty is quite messy and often uncontrollable. That is part of what freedom means.

      On the other hand, if you like order, then suck up and welcome your new Fascist overlords. But at least the trains run on time huh?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:But ... by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Informative

      No one is saying this. I mean, FDA meat inspectors cost money. So do airbags and seat belts that are required by law. But things just cost money. The funny question is how much other companies will be willing to pay phone manufacturers to put their browsers and search engines onto the phones.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    6. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... I thought regulation didn't cost anything, and you could just mandate goodness for free?

      I'll gladly not pay Google to not have their spyware built into, unremovable from and if you limit their access won't stop throwing notifications, like Google Play Services does whenever I turn on the GPS to use Osmand~.

      Some 95% of the apps that I use I get from F-Droid and Humble Bundle anyways.

    7. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you'd be a moron.
      This isn't too different from net neutrality regulations in Europe that force incumbents to RENT out their last mile infrastructure to competitors, they don't have to do it free of charge. And of course those rates are passed down to the consumer.

    8. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU might still mandate that Google roll back the $40 fee which is violating the spirit of the ruling.

    9. Re:But ... by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2

      Demanding they cease certain activities is one thing, but demanding that they give away their product for free ... that would be.. unprecidented.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    10. Re:But ... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Freedom is free. You don't need an android phone. There is no cost to NOT having one. The problem is with closed source software. That is the cost we keep paying (and no, I don't mean financial cost of the software).

    11. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess they didn't expect Google to act like petulant little children trying to get revenge.

      That's not what's happening. If it was, Google would be shooting itself in the foot, since it would be a strong incentive for device manufacturers not to use the Google suite, which is not at all what Google wants. What's actually happening is a predictable slap in the face to the EU idiots; as the summary says, manufacturers will simply make a deal where effectively they balance the cost of including the Google suite against a charge for pre-installing Chrome and Google Search - net cost zero, everything continues exactly as before, but EU anti-trust charges are invalidated.

    12. Re:But ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was never meant to be free, this was the intended outcome. Google gives manufacturers the option to pay for it or to ship Chrome/Google Search as the defaults. Having a choice is the point.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re: But ... by BanHammer · · Score: 2

      Samsung,Xiaomi have their own app stores and I believe more will follow soon.

    14. Re:But ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Guess what - consumers have always been the product! Ever since Ogg realized Thag wanted his sharp flint. He could get Thag to not only give him stuff (which took Thag's time), but he learned that people like Thag wanted sharp flints. And what kinds of flints different Thags wanted. Marketing was born then, back at the beginning. People are always the product.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    15. Re:But ... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Who ever said that?
      Any decision has its trade offs. If you are going to fine someone, they are collecting money which may had been used into something more productive. However not having any sort of punishment for breaking and/or reward for following a rule will just never happen.

      Now for the long term, if Europeans are so sick of paying extra for Google now that they are fined for anti-competive behavior. They should actually step up to the plate and be competitive.

      Europe isn't known for it technology sector. There are some good names in Engineering (Siemens, and Philips), but not much in software, and general modern consumer goods.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:But ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! And then when consumers drop their carriers overwhelmingly because you can't download the latest apps from the Play Store, you can't use GMail seamlessly, calendaring doesn't work, etc., we can build NEW carriers who will lock everything down to proprietary operating systems, stores, and ecosystems!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re: But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay more app stores...

    18. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody actually believes that, of course, but straw men sure do get those sweet upvotes, eh?

      Regulation is cost-shifting, by definition. Everyone, from ultra-progressive to anarcho-libertarian, knows that. The argument is about *which* regulations to have, not whether we should have any (try voiding patent and trade secret law, and see what Google says then).

      But it sure is easier to characterize people who disagree with you as idiots whose opinions are childish and unrealistic, because otherwise you'd have to mount a rational argument for why having a few corporations with nation-state wealth and power is better than having a more level market.

    19. Re:But ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.

      IHR gives me no useful information. Anyone seen this?

      It's not just Google. Facebook has notifications that cannot easily be cleared, items that you click without actually intending to, and ways of trapping you into interactions you didn't really want. Twitter and other social media repeatedly try to trick me into loading my contact list, all now 347 of them, half at least of which are incidental contacts in other social media or other Google stuff, like the auto-adds from Gmail, the CCs and BCCs accumulate. And the dupes. I'm not letting those go into my media feeds. Google isn't even the worst for me, though Google Maps asking me to rate a place because I sat through 2 traffic light cycles next to is is pretty stupid, especially when the location has been closed for a few months.

      Privacy protection, such as pure 100% opt-in, or even calculated value for data, would be more useful to me. Google is charging phone sellers/makers for the convenience of loading their products in, the advantage of getting in first, and the privilege/value of being the default where there's an actual choice - right now Apple is not likely to open up an Android app store, not a lot of opportunity there I think.

      It's all spyware, one reason why I reject a surprising number of app offers and use web services on my phone. I presume the app will grab every single bit of data it can, even if it isn't disclosed, and I'm not interested in fighting about it, so I don't use the app for some social media and similar sites like radio.com, who turns on notifications to me despite my choosing no, Snapchat, which is just annoying.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    20. Re: But ... by c933103 · · Score: 1

      Experience from China would tell you that's a /really/ bad idea. All apps would try to include their own message/push mechanism as they cannot ensure GCM would work and then they all have different ways to update due to lack of Google Play and also direct installation of fishy apk packages. was not found on this server.

    21. Re:But ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't cost anything. $40 is nothing compared to the cost anti-competitive practices impart on the economy.

    22. Re:But ... by Fuzi719 · · Score: 1

      Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.

      That's not Google's fault, that's your phone and its own issues. My phone pairs and connects with my Sync 3 system just fine, no issues. Typically, if the last music source on Sync 3 was your phone, your phone will then use whatever the default music app is. Evidently, IHeartRadio has been set as the default on your phone. If that's not what you wanted, blame IHeartRadio app, not Google.

    23. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a receiver that tells the app to start when bluetooth is connected. That's a really easy one. You need disable service and something like receiver stop or autoruns. That can clean up all your apps owning your phone issue.

    24. Re: But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Both F-Droid and Amazon have app updating built in. GCM and Google Play Services are bloatware and spyware garbage. Well made programs are self-contained and do not rely upon external crap like that.

      Come back when you actually have some experience, kid.

    25. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The intended outcome was that GMS was an all-or-nothing package. Google's approach to Android was, "If you want this critical piece of Android that actually makes the phone worth using, you need to license the proprietary GMS package, and to do that you need to ship us as default." Note how all the new licensing terms only apply for phones sold in the EU. If you want to sell a phone outside of the EU, you aren't allowed to drop default Google, and you aren't allowed to ship forks. This is bare-minimum compliance, and the EU should take them to task for that.

    26. Re:But ... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      In your example, the flint is the product.

      --
      bickerdyke
    27. Re:But ... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      ... I thought regulation didn't cost anything, and you could just mandate goodness for free?

      I'll gladly not pay Google to not have their spyware built into, unremovable from

      Talk to your device manufacturer. They always have the option to use alternatives. But they even can keep on using the android base and use a different store system. Of course running your own here costs money, that's why they are flocking to Google. But as I said: Talk to your manufacturer.

      --
      bickerdyke
    28. Re: But ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Sure. Identifying it is the challenge.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    29. Re: But ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Ok, first, that was my point. Google is not actually the big problem. But we digress.

      Usually my phone is NOT the last connection, not the last streaming device, it's just proving hard to find the survive that is causing this, and IHR and Lincoln are unable to help so far.

      In fact, both dispute my claim, despite screenshots. I'm possibly going to have to root and dump logs.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    30. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom was never free. Everything has a price.

      The price for liberty is quite messy and often uncontrollable. That is part of what freedom means.

      On the other hand, if you like order, then suck up and welcome your new Fascist overlords. But at least the trains run on time huh?

      Welcome to the free gulag, comrade!

    31. Re:But ... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Not just manufacturers, it gives competitors like Bing an option to pay the manufacturers to include their search as the default (thus covering Google's fee).

    32. Re:But ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Want to make millions of dollars come up with an uncloggable toilet.

      India already did it.

      P.S. There should probably be some punctuation in there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:But ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      No, being marketed to doesn't make you the product. You become the product when you're getting a product or service someone else is partially or fully paying for. Like for example a tavern hiring a bard, the patrons might think they're the customers since they have some influence over what he plays and pay tips but from the bard's perspective it's the owner's tavern and their rules come first. It's in the same vein as "there's no such thing as a free lunch" or "the first one is free", if you're not paying for it somebody else is with ulterior motives. Though I don't mean it more ominous than that when Coca-Cola runs an ad they want you to go buy Coca-Cola. But if you want to see hanky-panky and they don't want to advertise on a porn channel the TV company might listen more to them than to you, because ratings don't mean anything unless eyeballs can be converted to cash.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    34. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not just Google. Facebook has notifications that cannot easily be cleared, items that you click without actually intending to, and ways of trapping you into interactions you didn't really want. Twitter and other social media repeatedly try to trick me into loading my contact list

      And yet you continue to use Facebook/Twitter/anything like these. Astonishing.

      Personally I never used either one and what you mention (while valid) is the least of my reasons. I'm not surprised to hear complaints like yours and many others. What does surprise me is that people continue to put up with this as though social media were some kind of essential requirement for human life. Maybe they enjoy being pushed around?

    35. Re:But ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I'm saddled with some business contacts on FB. All else is minimal, and I keep narrowing down my profile, but yeah I put up with a lot, especially ACs being righteous.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    36. Re:But ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Your idea of "Free" isn't the same as mine. Freedom was bought by the eternal vigilance against tyranny. Just because it hasn't cost you anything, doesn't mean it was free. Someone paid a heavy price.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:But ... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sounds like you have been brainwashed. Let me guess, we invaded Afghanistan so you can get an Android phone? What you say doesn't make sense in what we are talking about. What tyranny was vanquished? Google? You guys have no clue what freedom is.

    38. Re:But ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yet we still have tens of deep thinkers that post to every Google thread feeling the need to explain it to the rest of the population that's not as smart as we are.

    39. Re:But ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You are the product

      Agreed. The consumer is a pretty important part of a capitalist economy. Personally, I'm going to save my outrage for other topics.

    40. Re:But ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      if you're not paying for it somebody else is with ulterior motives

      Except there're no ulterior motives. You know how Google makes money. Do you think the rest of us just can't grok it?

    41. Re: But ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yes Samsung has had it's own app store ever since they released their first phone. What's it called now?

    42. Re:But ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.

      Did you really just post in this thread about a problem you are having with bluetooth and the IHR app?

    43. Re: But ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      As an example of 0) potentially intrusive, privacy violating app behavior not of Google's making, and 1) how it's not just Google.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    44. Re: But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares. I pay for Apple devices because they Just Work.

    45. Re:But ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. You are the commodity that the manufacturer/dealer wants. YOU are the product - and they entice you to the store via ads and trinkets that may interest you. You're looking at the equation from the viewpoint of what most consider the "consumer"; turn around, look at it from the position of the manufacturer or "dealer" and YOU are the product they desire.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    46. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might buy a car without airbags if the price were right and I don't really give two shits about the FDA inspecting meat. The reality is these are shitty solutions to problems and with modern technology certainly there would be better solutions given a free market. Even the black market found a solution to the problem of purity in illegal drugs. Remember silk road? Before it was shut down a free market solution was being developed where people could send in drugs to be tested. We don't need government and I'd rather get rid of it and hire my own security.

    47. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull fucking shit.

    48. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Boost Mobile variant Motorola/Lenovo E5 Play, there are no custom roms for it. I got it because specs wise it was the best of the cheap phones on a network that is actually pretty good where I live while still being cheap. I don't throw hundreds of dollars at phones every year or 2, this one will last me till well into 5G deployment or a massive security hole goes unpatched, in either case it won't be a deal breaker to get another sub $100 phone as I only dropped $70 on this.

  2. Good for consumers! by kqs · · Score: 1

    I was worried that consumers were not paying enough to Google for their phones. Fortunately, the EU has fixed the glitch.

    1. Re:Good for consumers! by MrMr · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see. Apparently google estimates to earn up to 40$ per device from their app platform. Other manufacturers can now compete on the software offering.

    2. Re:Good for consumers! by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      There is no competition. Phone manufacturers will just bundle in Chrome and Google Search in exchange and not have to pay anything.

    3. Re:Good for consumers! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think that may be the point. While the consumer may get a financial hit. They are getting the ability to gain choices as well.
      When there is a big company willing to spend millions of dollars into a free feature. It is difficult for you to try to sell your product that you invested millions of dollars in to sell for money.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re: Good for consumers! by c933103 · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is if other platform gain money from some other way, like sponsorship from government of third country. One of the largest android fork nowadays is Aliyun in China, and it have already shown the capability to manipulate user documents when Alibaba and the Chinese government desired to.

  3. Not in the UK though! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the brits can spend the money they saved on going to the dentist. Lol, who am I kidding?

    1. Re: Not in the UK though! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're just not as vain as you yanks.

    2. Re: Not in the UK though! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Well, bangers and mashed splits the difference.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  4. How much does MicroG cost? by emil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And will Google take legal action?

    I will be wiping Google from my phone next month with MicroG. They have worn out their welcome.

    1. Re:How much does MicroG cost? by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Yeah how dare them not provide everything for free.

    2. Re:How much does MicroG cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - he'll find out how much work (for free) google actually did when he installs some malware from another non-google-play app store (otherwise known as malware breeding grounds)

      No doubt he'll blame google for that as well.

    3. Re:How much does MicroG cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't care what you do. You're not making a big statement here really. They're after the vast majority who never change the defaults, not the relatively few savvy people who know what they're doing.

  5. Well that backfired somewhat... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

    Though there are of course games being played here, much in the same way Microsoft did in the 90s. It could easily go the other way in practice, Google pay Apple billions to put their search engine in iOS Safari, so they think it has value. These prices are being set to make a political point.

    As much as the more hysterical American /. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and the EU is flawed when it comes to regulation, do we really want Google to be able to do anything it wants? There has to be some oversight, so, what?

    1. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really simple. If you're from the US you must hate whatever the EU does. And of course if you're from the EU you can't just let those Americans hate you, you must hate them back.

    2. Re: Well that backfired somewhat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did it backfire? I'll wait and see.

      It shows what your privacy is worth to Google though.

    3. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      "As much as the more hysterical EU /. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and government is flawed when it comes to regulation"

      FTFY

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. EU is just as anal about European companies behaviour.

    5. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, they are, yes. But don't you find it odd that many of the things hit US companies the hardest, mostly because there are very few or no such companies within the EU?
      Looking at the results of those actions I think that's pretty blatant protectionism, although it certainly happens in a lot more elegant ways than anything what the loud-mouth in the White House does towards those ends. Not that protectionism is necessarily a bad thing for the economy of a certain trade bloc, given the circumstances in this world. And those US companies certainly have been screwing over the European tax system on every possible occasion. But it is a form of protectionism.

    6. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How exactly is it protectionism, if there's no competing platform from the EU?

    7. Re:Well that backfired somewhat... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      many of the things hit US companies the hardest

      Maybe that's because the EU companies have a business model that conforms to EU law, while US companies try and pretend they don't have to.

  6. Don't pay, ship without GApps... by Athanasius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... and quietly point users at third party resources for installing such themselves? Sure works for third party ROMs like LineageOS.

    1. Re:Don't pay, ship without GApps... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Define "works". LineageOS has a market share that is almost immeasurably small. You will find a niche in only those people who prefer to have an OS without any of the ecosystem (Where's my Candy Crush APK?) or those who prefer special purpose services (Kindle).

      In either case you're effectively giving up the traditional Android phone in the process. Expect next year to be the year of Linux on the phone .... wait dammit that didn't work the way I wanted it to, but you get the point.

    2. Re:Don't pay, ship without GApps... by higuita · · Score: 1

      do not even need that, ship with Aptoide (www.Aptoide.com), it is just one of the top alternative app store and almost the only not tied to another big company/manufacturer

      --
      Higuita
  7. Who Sells Android Phones Sans Google Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a vendor that sells Android phones with Lineage OS? Then the user can install Google apps as needed.

  8. Retaliation... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds to me like Google really didn't like the EU hampering their vertical integration plans and are retaliating by raising the costs of smartphones to people living in the EU area. Then again if you are a company with a motto as benign as "Don't be evil" only to get rid of it then retaliation is probably going to be your standard response to consumer protection laws being enforced.

    The specific number seems to be based on the idea that they're going to be losing all revenue from advertising and datamining operations and are simply pulling in that revenue directly from users as a single up-front payment. For comparison's sake Facebook's per-user revenues were about $20 in 2017 so that's probably two year's revenue from datamining and in-app advertising trough Google APIs.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re:Retaliation... by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds to me like Google really didn't like the EU hampering their vertical integration plans and are retaliating by raising the costs of smartphones to people living in the EU area. Then again if you are a company with a motto as benign as "Don't be evil" only to get rid of it then retaliation is probably going to be your standard response to consumer protection laws being enforced.

      Not sure it's evil to do what you've been told to do. $40 is almost certainly fair market value for the Google suite, maybe even less than FMV.

      The problem here is the EU hasn't been able to see the wood for the trees. It assumes the problem is the bundling of search and has gone overboard trying to prevent that, when in fact that's not what most people are concerned about. So a stupid decision has been made, Google has protested, they've been overruled, now they're doing what they've been ordered to do, and you're blaming them for it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Retaliation... by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is not retaliation, this is actually good news for EU consumers, because it allows competition with other app stores. It's hard to compete with free + hidden costs.

    3. Re:Retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could be also seen as the cost of monopoly position and it will hopefully give the market a reason to break that position finally.

    4. Re:Retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not retaliation, this is actually good news for EU consumers

      That remains to be seen. Me, I predict a bunch of random shit which works to varying levels of quality and frustrates users as they move from one device to the next and need to start all over with a whole new set of apps.

      It's hard to compete with free + hidden costs.

      I guarantee you, it ain't free, and it ain't without hidden costs.

      Someone has to build and maintain those app stores.

      And, really, to me this pretty much is the demonstration of why I'm pretty much over Android ... there's just too many variations on it as every company wants their own app store, their own payment system, and their own ad services/analytics/snooping.

      I've seen the crap Samsung puts on their devices, and I'm not interested in their or anyone else's special version of Android, because I'm not interested in using the crap that OEMs make or having all of my stuff routed through yet another corporation.

      I really wish Google hadn't essentially killed off the Nexus devices, which were clean versions of Android.

      My next tablet won't be an Android, that's for sure. It also won't be laden with some OEMs attempts at writing replacements for the Google stuff.

    5. Re:Retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retaliating by raising the costs of smartphones to people living in the EU area.

      Did they? The company who pays $billions to be included as a search option on a competitors device just opened up their platform to such deals in Europe. $40 / device doesn't sound too unreasonable.

    6. Re:Retaliation... by higuita · · Score: 1

      >Someone has to build and maintain those app stores.

      You miss the point... there are alternative shops out there, f-droid and Aptoide are 2 of the biggest managed by small teams. Trying to ask phone manufactures or phone operators to bundle their store is impossible, google one is free and known, why risk anything else! Marketing, paying operators, etc is almost impossible, they have to pay for the systems and people, they have no money left for anything else!
      But if you have to pay 40€... maybe that other free or cheap app store isn't that bad and they may test releasing it on cheap phones. If that works, it may push the market enough so those stores can finally grow their market share. With more money, those shops can also pay their bills and improve the service.

      --
      Higuita
  9. I just care about being able to uninstall it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and the Google spyware (collecting WiFi info, e-mail info, DNS lookups, voice and camera recordings, text messages etc.) has to be removed as well.

    1. Re:I just care about being able to uninstall it by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Add the Google Play store, because that's fucking useful, and if it makes the device cheaper than sure, include Google Search and Chrome.

      Hell, I'll even leave Chrome installed. It's useful for the rare sites my better browser doesn't like. I run three browsers on desktop for similar reasons.

      But let me uninstall Search, let me uninstall Google Now and for fucks sake let me uninstall that shitty Facebook app without rooting my phone.

  10. So all good news then by houghi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It means we will get phones without all the forced Google stuff. Great!

    I am already happy.

    I rather have a price on something that I will not buy than having to pay with my privacy for something I do not want in the first place.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:So all good news then by dschiptsov · · Score: 1

      You already have a few OSS Android-based firmwares. Seems like without Google Services these are, well, not necessarily useless - you still could make calls and browse the web with firefox and what not - but rather nothing special, so nothing that it is silly to compare them with even stock Android One. Google services are not just tracking, it is integration of several specialized the services into an overall experience in the first place.

    2. Re:So all good news then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,you won't. Consumers demand those things, so they will be included. Your niche tastes to not drive decisions.

      You'll just end up paying a higher price, with most of that revenue going right to google.

      Again. You'll pay more, and get a worse experience.

      Maybe you'll listen to those free market economists next time. (I know you won't. I just want to rub it in your face)

    3. Re:So all good news then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather have a price on something that I will not buy than having to pay with my privacy for something I do not want in the first place.

      That's a nice theory, but I think what will actually happen is: the manufacturer will just pass along the $40 cost to you as a $50 price markup, so you'll just have a more expensive phone that still requires you to have your privacy invaded by Google.

    4. Re:So all good news then by Voyager529 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You already have a few OSS Android-based firmwares. Seems like without Google Services these are, well, not necessarily useless - you still could make calls and browse the web with firefox and what not - but rather nothing special, so nothing that it is silly to compare them with even stock Android One.

      Google services are not just tracking, it is integration of several specialized the services into an overall experience in the first place.

      The issue with the OSS firmwares as an excuse is that you're right, they usually aren't comparable...but not for the reason you think.

      Try using one. I can't think of a currently-sold-in-the-US Android handset that doesn't ship with a locked bootloader. I think HTC will provide a first party unlock, and I think possibly Motorola, but even those OEMs will require you surrender your warranty. So, most people end up hoping someone on XDA has managed to hack the security of the handset in order to force the bootloader open...and even if they have, it's common for OTA updates to patch those exploits, so you have to
      avoid updates to ensure you have the correct bootloader version, and that's a best case scenario.

      So, you've got your bootloader unlocked. You've voided your warranty, you're hoping the random root tool you downloaded isn't a trojan, and you've expressed a willingness to give up some of the hardware advantages. AOSP ROMs can't use Wi-Fi calling, and they don't ship with the extensions that make the S-Pen on Note series phones do anything useful, and so forth. You've backed up all your data with Titanium Backup, and then you flash in TWRP...and you load everything, hoping the ROM works well on your particular phone, which you can't be sure of, because Android's HAL is good, but most phones have people who customize ROMs on a per-model basis, sometimes even requiring different ROMs between different carriers to deal with the different baseband modems.

      So now you flash, and you decide to put up with whatever random quirks your ROM has. You're doing the same thing again next time your ROM has an update....did I mention all of this is a best case scenario?

      In summary, if you can find me a phone that has both a Google-blessed ROM and an AOSP-based ROM, where users can flash either one of them with a tool direct from the OEM and still have support and their warranty, with the ONLY difference being the lack of Google services, then it's possible you can make the 'overal experience' claim. Otherwise, you're ignoring gigantic swaths of technical reasons why end users don't have much of a choice on this topic in the first place.

    5. Re:So all good news then by higuita · · Score: 1

      all those services are useful ... if you use then! Most people do not use most of google services

      i can browser the net, use GPS and maps, see my calendar and taks, take pictures, sync my contacts and files ... what i'm missing? games? yes, i can also play several games... what else? social network? i personally do not use then, but they are there!

      Most of those features are really useless or only needed by some people... talk to the phone? nope, useless to me, but for old people that may be a killer feature

      --
      Higuita
  11. (insert Nelson Muntz laugh here) by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Google is also offering separate agreements to cover some or all of the licensing costs for companies that choose to install Chrome and Google search on their devices.

    That's quite a "fuck-you-and-your-EU-antitrust-order" plus "thank you for strengthening our browser and search engine monopoly you bunch of fucking EU morons" combo.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re: (insert Nelson Muntz laugh here) by houghi · · Score: 2

      Could backfire and seen as avyse of their market dominance. Very soon we will not need to pay taxes in Europe as the US companies, who think the rules do not apply,will be paying it all.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re: (insert Nelson Muntz laugh here) by dkone · · Score: 1

      (Insert any other laughter here) As soon as the US companies have to start paying the EU taxes you speak of, how do you think they will make up for that loss of revenue? If your answer is that they will pass it on the EU consumer, then you win the 'wise consumer' prize.

  12. Back To The Future..... by Zorro · · Score: 3, Funny

    Smuggling things in to Europe from the UK.

    It is like it is the 70s all over again!

  13. Windows 10 mobile comeback. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Windows 10 mobile starts rising from the dead over this.

    If I remember correctly it's licensing fee was cheaper than $40 and just about every android phone could run it.

  14. revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No, Samantha, that's not revenge. That's the cost of doing business. Your holy bureaucracy decided that free was bad, so now you must be charged, as your holy bureaucrats must be paid a tax on what you must be charged. This isn't a petty revenge, it's a pretty reasonable estimate of the value of the software.

    1. Re:revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Google being crybabies, taking their ball and going home.

    2. Re:revenge? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Uhmm.. no. They still offer their software to the device manufacturers. That's exactly the opposite of packing up and going home.

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:revenge? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      It's Google being crybabies, taking their ball and going home.

      What Google is doing is simply introducing a new business structure since the EU ruled their current illegal.

      The reality of course is that phones won't be made in the EU because they can no longer be competitive. That's okay with Google, because there's no point in doing business w/ EU companies if they can't make money.

    4. Re:revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *facepalm*

      Do try to keep up with current events. This is Google absolutely being crybabies no matter how much you shill for them, kid.

  15. The cost of GDPR and unbundling by Hydrian · · Score: 2

    Now the Europeans are paying the cost of GDPR and the unbundling case. I'm not saying the browser unbundling or GDPR are bad, but to say it happens at no cost is just being naive. I hope it was worth it for them.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
    1. Re:The cost of GDPR and unbundling by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just like buying a laptop that I never even unbox. Things always look like a cost when you only look at one side of the equation. Anti-competitive practices come at a cost. Just how much money does Apple make again from selling default search options to Google?

      By the way I am using my laptop so that wasn't just a cost, and neither is paying $40 in response to now being allowed to monetise a platform in ways that were previously not possible due to the previous illegal agreement.

    2. Re:The cost of GDPR and unbundling by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I don't think someone outside of clueless internet forums said or expected that. But of course that's where being offended by anything happens.

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:The cost of GDPR and unbundling by Cederic · · Score: 1

      GDPR has only a couple of onerous clauses in it, and is thus well worth the cost.

      Unbridled exploitation of private data also has societal costs.

  16. Spyware and closed source by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    So as long as you bundle our closed source spyware (Chrome, etc) you don't have to pay the licensing cost. Sounds about right for malware vendors.

  17. Opportunity by nightfire-unique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This, right here, is what the Cyanogenmod team could have used before they got crushed.

    There's a hell of an opportunity for one of Google's competitors (Amazon, perhaps?) to jam their foot in the very-slightly-opened door, and kick like hell.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  18. Hey, Liberal Arts majors in EU govt by dschiptsov · · Score: 1

    Now you have that fair competition you wished for explicitly.

  19. Taxation and Tax evasion Audit needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Selling licences and such is a clever way to reduce and avoid taxes - legally.
    But there is a hitch - it must be arms lengh, and the valuations fair. Or the valuations so complicated the tax authorities will OK it because some dumber tax authority alrready did.
    Now if Google reckons $40 or so - then their deal when Alphabet was done looks mighty undervalued and contestable. Now transfer payment have visibility - let the audits begin.

  20. Wrong kind of oversight by Comboman · · Score: 1

    The right kind of oversight would be limiting what kind of private user information Google collects, or at least forcing them to disclose it. The EU kind of oversight is just trying to handicap Google so a European competitor (hahahahaha) can take its place and do the exact same evil that Google does except while paying EU taxes.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Wrong kind of oversight by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      The right kind of oversight would be limiting what kind of private user information Google collects, or at least forcing them to disclose it. The EU kind of oversight is just trying to handicap Google so a European competitor (hahahahaha) can take its place and do the exact same evil that Google does except while paying EU taxes.

      I don't see the evidence for this. Apart from there being no credible european competitors that they are supposedly protecting, Google *have* done bad. We complain about them on this site *all the time*.

      I doubt limiting what data they collect is available as a punishment. You can't just make up any rule, it's not a sport. They can only be punished for things that are actually against the law, and anitcompetitive behaviour is one of those things.

    2. Re:Wrong kind of oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Paying EU taxes? What kind of magical fairytale are you living in?
      EU companies already avoid paying taxes using every loophole they can find and while that certainly has raised some eyebrows and there are politicians who want that kind of tax evasion to be persecuted, the large corporations still manage to get away with it in most cases. How? Because there's often a large number of jobs depending on those corporations and if you hurt them as hard as they deserve it, they'll make their employees, who are also voters, pay for it by closing down jobs and they'll make sure that the employees know who is to blame for this.
      And that is the real big difference between EU companies and US companies that matters here. EU companies tend to create jobs within the EU, making them a good option for EU citizen. Politicians can claim that they created and or protected jobs if they place nice with certain companies. And that always seems to be one of the most solid vote getters. That is the kind of leverage that gets you somewhere with politicians, well, besides of direct bribes or lobbying if you like the euphemism. That appear to be always welcome.

  21. this is probably what carriers pay by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    they probably could not just give this away even if they wanted too. if they are charging carriers for android and access to the play store then they cant just offer it free to others. chances are many carriers have most favored nation type contracts that says google will always offer it to them at the lowest price it is offered to anyone else.

    when you sign a contract like that you dont care what google charges you because you can pass the cost to the consumer when all you competitirs pay the same.

    microsoft did thisfor years requiring pc makers to install the OS on every computer if they wanted it on any computer. it wasn't free but it became a cost for the computer that others had to pay too.

    don't be evil google just became what it hated-- microsoft.

    now they are being forced to debundle it we learn what andriod app suites actually cost the consumer

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  22. Ask and you'll get a 39.99$ rebate by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    The oldest trick in the book if you can't give away stuff for free.

  23. No you won't by brunes69 · · Score: 2

    It is not up to you what comes on your phone. It is up to the manufacturer.

    The question you need to ask is, do you seriously think Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc. are going to go to the trouble of building, packaging, and selling a "Google-free" phone that costs $40 more, for the 0.1% of customers who want said phone?

    No, they will not.

  24. Why $40 per device? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    It will cost as much as Google can get away with. The $40 per device figure is just an estimate that may, or may not, pan out in the real world.

  25. What if Amazon is cheaper? by emil · · Score: 1

    You can already install LineageOS without Google, then load it with a full suite of Amazon services. The EU just made a family of Amazon phones possible.

    What about Microsoft? There are already a full suite of integration apps for OneDrive, Outlook et al. Some of these depend upon gapps, but a Microsoft Android is surely not far out of reach.

    What about Samsung? Every Galaxy that I've seen has a suite of Samsung apps that duplicate Google functionality.

    What if all of these players unite to displace Google in the EU? Would that be good for consumers? Possibly.

  26. battery life by BellyJelly · · Score: 1

    Not everyone wants Google on their phone. If you offer people the choice of Google play and services, or AOSP with a more limited app store but double the battery life, then you might be surprised at how many takers there are. I have a gapps-free lineage on my Oppo Find 7, and get everything I need from f-droid or via yalp. And I have better battery life than when the phone was brand new several years ago.

  27. Abuse of monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just keep fining them till they see the light. Few billions per month would do the trick.

  28. Anybody remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the EU decided Google couldn't link to online stories with excerpts? And Google stopped linking to their newspapers. And viewership fell through the fucking floor? And then they wanted to pass laws saying that Google HAD to link to their stories, and HAD to pay for them?

    It's the same thing all over again. The EU has this idea that they have a right to extract money from Google, Apple, etc.

  29. The New Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new Microsoft-like overlords.

  30. It is just circumvention by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    If you want the "clean" gapps, you need to pay $40.
    But we can pay you $40 to install all the crapware that used to come with it.

    I don't really think any manufacturer will want to add $40 to the cost of a phone. Especially considering that Google crapware is not that crappy and that many customers actually want it.