European Commission Fines Google $5.1B for Favoring and Pre-Installing Own Services on Android

[pika2000]

LOL. Android users put up with that? if Apple starts pre-loading the iPhone with 3rd party applications, I'm going back to a basic phone.

I don't need a smart phone. The way this is going, I probably won't have a phone at all in 10 years. Eventually it's just going to be a privacy ****-show. I hope apple continues to stand up against this kind of stuff. Android is the new windows and for some people, that's okay.

Android users have to put up with a lot (thus it makes no sense why you should pay a premium for an Android phone, but that's another discussion).
The most notorious bloatware comes from Google itself, ranging from Google Plus (who uses this? Seriously, give it up Google!), Hangout, Google Play Books+Movies+newsstand, Google Duo, etc. Whenever I put a custom ROM on my Android, I always chose pico-size open GApps to debloat Google's own crap.

Then comes the major OEMs like Samsung who duplicates nearly all the AOSP Google apps (from contacts, calendar, Gallery, etc) and the app store itself. These OEMs wanted their customers to have their own brand's experience, but it supported the EU's argument that since Google "forces" OEMs to pre-install some of their apps for the phones to be certified, it resulted in duplicated apps for consumers.

And then due to regulations in some regions, OEMs have to pre-install some local apps.

 

[ravenstar]

Regarding Apple, I do think they need to be forced to open their hardware and APIs some. There isn't any real reason why I shouldn't be able to set Cortana or Alexa as my personal assistant on my iPhone and have it on standby all the time like Siri. Apple locks down certain features in a deliberate attempt to force consumers to use their services. Just like Microsoft and Google, Apple needs to be required to be reasonably open in allowing developers access to the OS to stimulate competition. There have been too many examples of apps getting killed when Apple decided to make similar functionality part of iOS and used their "non-compete" clause to shut the developers down.

As others have pointed out, Apple's situation is quite different. Apple has no obligation to even allow third party apps on their devices, let alone offer alternatives to their products. If Walmart decides to discontinue your favorite brand of a product because they now offer their own version, should they be forced to carry alternatives?

If Apple were making a product like an OS that's distributed to other vendors then using licensing terms on that product to prevent fair competition with other Apple products (as Microsoft and Google have tried to do), I'd agree with you. But Apple makes its own product and should be permitted to decide if and how they will support other vendors from interacting with it. They may not make the decisions we'd prefer, but that's hardly grounds for the government stepping in and dictating what kind of product they're allowed to make.

 

[Tinmania]

Microsoft got caught for that a long time ago. In 2009, the EU said that Microsoft had to offer a choice. That agreement lasted 5 years. Since 2014, Microsoft is now allowed to make IE the default browser. If another lawsuit comes up, then they might be forced to remove it again.

IE is already not the default browser in Windows 10 (Edge is). That said the relevance of a default browser on desktops/laptops nowadays is pretty minimal. Mobil is more popular and users are more adept at choosing their own browser.

Heck, even at the start of the EU browser agreement in 2009, when the mobile revolution was already a given, it was five or more years too late.



Mike

 

[the future]

Basically the lesson here is to vertically integrate the whole stack - like Apple does and then be immune from any kind of regulatory action.

Yeah, but vertically integrating is hard, especially if, like G, you are not a hardware company but a data broker and raw market share (i.e. the biggest amount of data on as many people as possible) is your ultimate goal; you need hardware partners producing billions of devices for that.

 

[amaze1499]

I am no financial expert but if $5b equals 4% of their cash reserves, that would mean they have $125B sitting their in banks.

Lets say they would invest $125B for a year and get a 5% return on that (very conservative investment thinking and its a bit more complex of course, however) they would make a profit of $6.25B.... Still would have made $1.2b profit in this example alone. So, get back to the desks and enjoy the weather. Everybody is a winner here.

 

[CaTOAGU]

Makes you wonder if they will target Apple and iOS for forcing Safari, Apple Maps, Apple Music, etc. on end users...

No. Apple installs those services on its own devices, it doesn’t force other manufacturers to do so.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

it's not their phones though

And unless I’m mistaken, because Android is open-sourced you are welcome to fork and make it your own. Or... you can let Google manage primary development. Google’s OS comes with Google’s software. Seems straightforward to me.
[doublepost=1531929568][/doublepost]

The BBC have reported that the fine comes down to three points against Google:

• it required Android handset and tablet manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and its own web browser Chrome as a condition for allowing them to offer access to its Play app store
• it made payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators that agreed to exclusively pre-install the Google Search app on their devices
• it prevented manufacturers from selling any smart devices powered by alternative "forked" versions of Android by threatening to refuse them permission to pre-install its apps

The report acknowledges that Google allow third party browsers etc. to be installed but they force manufacturers to install and default to google apps by threatening to withhold access to the Play store and other services.

Hmm... google provides their services and apps as a bundle. Want the services? Get the apps?
Im still unclear on why this is a bad thing.

 

[rtomyj]

Ouch. That'll sting. This bit:

"Now, Google has 90 days to ends these practices or face penalties"

I assume this can't be for devices already in the wild? Because we all know that that Android upgrade issue is going to make that task impossible.

“So why can’t you update the devices purchased recently?”
“You see we believe Android phones should only last a year. When that heats up the person has to get a new device to get the new OS.”
“That also sounds illegal...”
“Well Android phones are cheap! The users don’t care!...”

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Makes you wonder if they will target Apple and iOS for forcing Safari, Apple Maps, Apple Music, etc. on end users...

You forgot about the biggest one: The App Store.

 

[itsmilo]

Your choice of 24,000 devices that will send all of your personal and private data straight to Google and their advertising clients!

I wish this myth would just STOP. Google isn’t sending crap to anyone. They just throw you in a pool let’s say 18-24 year olds who likes sci-fi movies. Then those advertisers can pick the categories age and movie genres. It’s not like google is straight out taking your data and sells them like here is XY age XY would you like to target him? He lives in xy street

 

[DNichter]

You forgot about the biggest one: The App Store.

If they licensed the OS to other manufacturers and forced them to only use apps from the App Store, then yes absolutely. Currently that's not the case.

 

[itsmilo]

And unless I’m mistaken, because Android is open-sourced you are welcome to fork and make it your own. Or... you can let Google manage primary development. Google’s OS comes with Google’s software. Seems straightforward to me.
[doublepost=1531929568][/doublepost]
Hmm... google provides their services and apps as a bundle. Want the services? Get the apps?
Im still unclear on why this is a bad thing.

Because Google has the market share so if a tiny little phone manufacturer wants to offer the PlayStore to literally SURVIVE they have to agree to whatever Google dictates. This is the issue.

Another analogy. Let’s say your CEO (holding the power) forces you to suck his ... to stay on his good side and get certain perks. Clearly that’s wrong too no?

 

[MacLawyer]

I understand the legal theory of the ruling. However, the unbelievable size of the fine paints a picture of an outright money grab by the EU. 5.00% of average worldwide daily revenues per day???

 

[Rigby]

Found this response from alternative search engine DuckDuckGo interesting:

https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1019562507294461953

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Because Google has the market share so if a tiny little phone manufacturer wants to offer the PlayStore to literally SURVIVE they have to agree to whatever Google dictates. This is the issue.

Another analogy. Let’s say your CEO (holding the power) forces you to suck his ... to stay on his good side and get certain perks. Clearly that’s wrong too no?

I think your analogy - while a great visual - is off base. If I make a product, i should be able to dictate the business terms where you can use it. Google builds and maintains Android, so if you want to use official Android... the terms state that you are required to include Google apps and services. If you DON’T want to include Google apps/services yu are free to fork the OS without penalty. Your choice.

 

[austinmcguire]

If it's okay, I'm responding to you both together. You seem to be the only two capable of not "fan boying" a topic. Since you two are adults (or at a minimum very mature kids) can we agree to not mix customer perspective and OEM perspective as if they are the same?

Points 2 & 3 from Pete's post have some validity imo. Point 1, not so much. If Google says use my app store (the biggest) to attract customers. In return for using my app store, you gotta load my apps onto your devices. Or you can use Android on your own and develop your own app environment like Amazon.
You are right. Samsung =/= all Android OEMS. But Samsung does represent the majority of the Android handsets in the EU. So the majority of the phones in the EU don't fall under the 3 things Pete mentioned.


If I recall correctly (I may not) MS was punitive against OEM's for failing to bend the knee. I don't think Google was being punitive. I think they basically said, "Hey take Android and run with it. Build out your ecosystem and app store as grandly as you'd like. Have a ball... or you can let us help you. But if we help you, we get some default app loads on your devices.

Google is also punitive against OEMs who do not bend the knee. Once Amazon forked FireOS, Google told the AOSP partners that if you manufacture a phone with a forked version of Android (like FireOS), you lose access to the Play Store and all Google services. It stopped Amazon from going to an existing phone manufacturer (like Google does for the Nexus/Pixel lines) and just saying I'll take your standard design (or maybe tweak it a little) and just add my software and branding. Imagine if Microsoft had done this with WinMobile manufacturers. (Microsoft had already been beaten into submission over doing this with Linux OS on the desktop, so they know better than to try this on mobile.) The first generations of Android phones would have never gotten off the ground.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Google is also punitive against OEMs who do not bend the knee. Once Amazon forked FireOS, Google told the AOSP partners that if you manufacture a phone with a forked version of Android (like FireOS), you lose access to the Play Store and all Google services. It stopped Amazon from going to an existing phone manufacturer (like Google does for the Nexus/Pixel lines) and just saying I'll take your standard design (or maybe tweak it a little) and just add my software and branding. Imagine if Microsoft had done this with WinMobile manufacturers. (Microsoft had already been beaten into submission over doing this with Linux OS on the desktop, so they know better than to try this on mobile.) The first generations of Android phones would have never gotten off the ground.

And yet... one of the often comlained about issues with Android is that because Google doesn’t have central control each manufacturer is free to update or not. Think about this from a CONSUMER perspective.

 

[DNichter]

Found this response from alternative search engine DuckDuckGo interesting:

https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1019562507294461953

Interesting to see. It definitely makes the whole thing feel a lot more illegal than at first glance. I suppose it makes sense for Google to do anything in their power to force users to their service as user data is the only thing that matters to them.

 

[pat500000]

Someone got goggled...

 

[timber]

Makes you wonder if they will target Apple and iOS for forcing Safari, Apple Maps, Apple Music, etc. on end users...

I haven't read this case thoroughly but these rulings usually revolve around abuse of dominant position.

And Apple, to start with, hasn't got a dominant position in smartphones, or PCs or whatever (they had in personal music but that is in the past) so I doubt anyone would go after them.

 

[69Mustang]

Google is also punitive against OEMs who do not bend the knee. Once Amazon forked FireOS, Google told the AOSP partners that if you manufacture a phone with a forked version of Android (like FireOS), you lose access to the Play Store and all Google services. It stopped Amazon from going to an existing phone manufacturer (like Google does for the Nexus/Pixel lines) and just saying I'll take your standard design (or maybe tweak it a little) and just add my software and branding. Imagine if Microsoft had done this with WinMobile manufacturers. (Microsoft had already been beaten into submission over doing this with Linux OS on the desktop, so they know better than to try this on mobile.) The first generations of Android phones would have never gotten off the ground.

I addressed that in my post when I said points 2 & 3 from Pete's post have validity. I'd also disagree with your characterization of the situation. Amazon wasn't stopped from going to an existing OEM. The OEM's chose to hitch their wagons to Google instead. That was a conscious choice. Now, I'd argue that a small Android OEM like HTC would have been better off by forgoing the Play Store and essentially becoming a contract manufacturer for Amazon hardware along with providing their own designs as well - same thing they did for Google. Hindsight being 20/20, they would definitely be no worse off than they are now.

 

[austinmcguire]

And yet... one of the often comlained about issues with Android is that because Google doesn’t have central control each manufacturer is free to update or not. Think about this from a CONSUMER perspective.

Apples and oranges. While I agree that the lack of updates is a major consumer issue, that is a completely different issue than blocking access to Google Services because you built a phone for another company that is a fork of the supposedly open Android OS. What most people think of as Android is actually Android + Google Play. With the exception of FireOS and China, Android deployments without Google Play are as rare as DarwinOS deployments.

 

[itsmilo]

I think your analogy - while a great visual - is off base. If I make a product, i should be able to dictate the business terms where you can use it. Google builds and maintains Android, so if you want to use official Android... the terms state that you are required to include Google apps and services. If you DON’T want to include Google apps/services yu are free to fork the OS without penalty. Your choice.

That’s where the EU is different to the US. We generally don’t share this „it’s mine I can do whatever I want with it and if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else“ mentally. Hell, i cannot even pick my own house color even tho it’s MY house

 

[austinmcguire]

I addressed that in my post when I said points 2 & 3 from Pete's post have validity. I'd also disagree with your characterization of the situation. Amazon wasn't stopped from going to an existing OEM. The OEM's chose to hitch their wagons to Google instead. That was a conscious choice. Now, I'd argue that a small Android OEM like HTC would have been better off by forgoing the Play Store and essentially becoming a contract manufacturer for Amazon hardware along with providing their own designs as well - same thing they did for Google. Hindsight being 20/20, they would definitely be no worse off than they are now.

I think you missed my point. You are correct that Amazon could go to an existing manufacturer (in your example HTC). But then Google said that if you do build a non-AOSP Android phone, you can no longer be a member of AOSP and you loose access to the Play store and Google services. So if Amazon did go to a phone manufacturer like HTC, they would have to choose the company with over 50% of the worldwide market at the time (bigger now), or a completely new entrant to the market with 0 market share. If Amazon is not big enough to entice a company to take that risk, what chance do smaller companies have?

This is the monopoly behavior that the EU is trying to address. By have a monopoly (or near monopoly) in one area, you block new/smaller companies in another area.

 

[69Mustang]

I think you missed my point. You are correct that Amazon could go to an existing manufacturer (in your example HTC). But then Google said that if you do build a non-AOSP Android phone, you can no longer be a member of AOSP and you loose access to the Play store and Google services. So if Amazon did go to a phone manufacturer like HTC, they would have to choose the company with over 50% of the worldwide market at the time (bigger now), or a completely new entrant to the market with 0 market share. If Amazon is not big enough to entice a company to take that risk, what chance do smaller companies have?

This is the monopoly behavior that the EU is trying to address. By have a monopoly (or near monopoly) in one area, you block new/smaller companies in another area.

Nope. Didn't miss your point at all. The point you made is one of the two that I said had validity. It was point 2 from Pete (actually it was point 3 - oops):
The BBC have reported that the fine comes down to three points against Google:

• it required Android handset and tablet manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and its own web browser Chrome as a condition for allowing them to offer access to its Play app store
• it made payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators that agreed to exclusively pre-install the Google Search app on their devices
• it prevented manufacturers from selling any smart devices powered by alternative "forked" versions of Android by threatening to refuse them permission to pre-install its apps

Didn't miss your point. With that out of the way, I still say with hindsight, a small OEM like HTC would have been no worse than they are now by choosing to work with Amazon instead of using the Play Store. I'd say worse case scenario they'd be propped up by Amazon just like they're being propped up by Google now.