Google Will Implement a Microsoft-Style Browser Picker For EU Android Devices (arstechnica.com)

Back in 2009, the EU's European Commission said Microsoft was harming competition by bundling its browser -- Internet Explorer -- with Windows. Eventually Microsoft and the European Commission settled on the "browser ballot," a screen that would pop up and give users a choice of browsers. Almost 10 years later, the tech industry is going through this again, this time with Google and the EU. After receiving "feedback" from the European Commission, Google announced last night that it would offer Android users in the EU a choice of browsers and search engines. Ars Technica reports: In July, the European Commission found Google had violated the EU's antitrust rules by bundling Google Chrome and Google Search with Android, punishing manufacturers that shipped Android forks, and paying manufacturers for exclusively pre-installing Google Search. Google was fined a whopping $5.05 billion (which it is appealing) and then the concessions started. Google said its bundling of Search and Chrome funded the development and free distribution of Android, so any manufacturer looking to ship Android with unbundled Google apps would now be charged a fee. Reports later pegged this amount as up to $40 per handset.

We don't have many details on exactly how Google's new search and browser picker will work; there's just a single paragraph in the company's blog post. Google says it will "do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use."

Comments

But i will not help very much

[xack]

Back when Microsoft had to do it we still had 4 major browser engines. Now we are down to 2 and most browsers are Chrome skins. What should really happen is that Chromium and Blink get spun off into a non Google controlled organization so we can have healthy competition on the mobile web. Plus iOS and the remains of Windows mobile should also have browser choices.

Re:But i will not help very much

[Merk42]

Back when Microsoft had to do it we still had 4 major browser engines. Now we are down to 2 and most browsers are Chrome skins.

Crazy stupid revisionist history right there. Google didn't write a browser themselves they simply used webkit and added their own "chrome". Google's contribution is literally the name of their browser.

Chrome forked off of Webkit to make Blink back in 2013, so there has been quite a bit of work done since Chrome's initial release. If you want to discount all the work that goes into something that was a fork of something else, well then I guess all the work on WebKt doesn't count as it was forked from KHTML.

Re:I guess it was too hard?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.

Re:How is Android a monopoly?

[thegarbz]

What has a monopoly got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that you need a monopoly in order to abuse your power? Are you under the impression that antitrust laws only applies to monopolies?

Let me help you: No.

As to Google's market power, there are several hundred million smartphones shipped every year. Some 75-80% of those globally run Android, some 50-70% of those fall under the Google certification scheme. So a fair chunk of the entire market was restricted due to a bundling practice that prevented competition on an open use platform. That is called abuse of market power and it has directly affected hundreds of millions of people regardless of your definition of monopoly.

unless the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there as well as those like the Kindle devices running a non-Google fork of Android without all the Google bits and the few others still running things like Windows or Blackberry all dont count

You're conflating two different things there. The presence of a completely different platform does not absolve Google from control over a platform. Just because there's lots of iPhones or iPads out there doesn't mean Google isn't abusing its market power controlling Android. As to the Kindle devices and others ... well that is exactly the point. These have been intentionally limited by a company with large market power precisely due to being customised. Critical core features have been locked out of these devices, their market share has reflected this accordingly, and that is precisely what the fine is all about.

Microsoft browser ballot

[Mr_Silver]

When Microsoft implemented the browser ballot, the NY Times reported the following (emphasis mine):

Rivals of Microsoft's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company, fulfilling a regulatory requirement, started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch.

Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer worldwide, said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a "choice screen" that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month. The screen displays links to a dozen browsers, including Explorer, Firefox, Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari and Opera.

Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Money and Google giving a fuck

[DrYak]

Also, back then Microsoft made money by selling the OS and thus needed to keep users in the walled garden they were creating with incompatible IE. They needed users defaulting to IE, so the users get used to a world that runs on MS' ActiveX component and uses MS' specific HTML quircks and looks broken on any other browser, so the users will insist on having IE, and thus the users (or the companies they work in) will need to buy MS-Windows.

TL;DR: Microsoft's quasy-monopoly leveraged to give more money to Microsoft.

-----

Whereas today:

Google absolutely doesn't give a flying fuck about *what browser* you happen to be using.
Remember, they pour money both into the development of their own in-house browser (Chrome - whose engine is nowadays behind nearly all browsers) *AND* pay money to the Mozilla foundation (to develop Firefox. Nowadays the only barely significant browser with a different engine).

As browser are more or less standard compliant, you're not locked into using one due to technology (everybody uses Javascript and webassembly instead of MS ActiveX) or incompatible HTML (everybody strives for HTML5 standard). The DRM plugins for EME (e.g.: Widevine CDM) are about the only proprietary shit on the internet and even that is following some form of standard and available on both engines (but only for a limited amound of CPU architecture. Too bad is you want to use some opensource RISC-V or SH-2/J2, instead of the provided ARM and x86/64)

As long as you use *a* browser to go to the internet Google is happy. Because then they can subject your eyeballs to a *deluge of Ads* and monetize the shit out of your online behaviour : They have a giant chunk of the advertising market (Adwords, etc.). And of the tracking infrastructure (Analytics, Tagmanager, etc.). And have a near-monopoly to see your search-requests. With only a few relevant competitor (Facebook, Amazon, etc.).

Noticed how at least their own mobile browser doesn't provide plug-in ? Thus making impossible to install uBlock on your smartphone (but need to fumble around with hosts or blocking VPN plugins) Or how they have a very limited form of web extension API preventing stuff like NoScript? (which relies on API extensions that only Firefox provides)
No surprise here: they *need* the users as likely as possible to run into ads and trackers once on the net.

ie.: Google doesn't need Chrome, it only needs people on the Internet (where Google can make money out of them).

Requiring Google to support multiple browser would have been like requiring Microsoft to support multiple firmwares (BIOS, UEFI, OpenFirmware, coreboot) - wouldn't have mattered to Microsoft as long as the users ends up where Microsoft makes money.