9 ms·

Google Said to Be Under U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny Over Android

46 points by Rifu 11y ago

IBM 11y ago
Must be because Europe can't compete with American tech companies.
- nisdec 11y ago
  SAP?
crimsonalucard 11y ago
> In the last two years, the FTC has shown it will pursue big technology companies in consumer-fraud cases. It has accused Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. of wrongly billing consumers for unauthorized purchases made by children on mobile applications. Google and Apple settled the FTC complaint and agreed to refund money to consumers. Amazon said it would fight the lawsuit. That's a pathetic track record. Corporations have done crimes equivalent to mass murder and the "biggest case" the ftc has taken on is refunding a fucking app store purchase that was probably my fault for not keeping an eye on my kid? I almost hope amazon wins.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  "equivalent to mass murder"? Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    The company [GM] continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled and paid compensation for 124 deaths.[1] No, not really an overstatement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall
    - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
      It is interesting that people focus so intensely on these deaths while almost not caring about the other 32K car deaths per year (plus hundreds of thousands of injuries and billions of dollars in damages) just in the U.S. alone. One month is the equivalent of a 9/11, for which the nation mobilized and waged war halfway around the world. In my opinion all this bloviating about ignition switches, bundled browsers etc. misses the mark. We should be demanding much safer and more survivable vehicles. I sure don't want to die on the road or see my loved ones crippled by some drunk driver. Let's legislate survivability at highway speeds. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works--collision avoidance, prison for DUI, explosive bumpers--anything to reduce those numbers.
      - Ensorceled 11y ago
        I'm not focusing on those deaths at all, they are just one clear instance of a corporation killing a bunch of people. I'm appalled that you can simply run somebody over with a car and then say "oops, accidents happen" and walk away. I'm appalled that safety standards are so lax. I'm appalled that drunk drivers are not treated exactly like somebody who walks around a fires a gun randomly. I'm appalled that people who have become a driving hazard because of illness or infirmity are allowed to keep driving "for their dignity". The 32K deaths is why the self-driving car will rapidly take over the market once it is viable. The insurance companies will see to it.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        I don't know exact statistics about the US, but in my country (Finland), it is getting very difficult to reduce the number of deaths in traffic by the kind of actions you propose. First of all, around one fifth of people killed in traffic have committed suicide. They take their car, take off the seatbelt, and drive as fast as they can and hit an oncoming heavy goods vehicle. That's bad, because it is very traumatic to the people who drive trucks and transport stuff. They get injured physically, and even worse, emotionally. You can't stop this by making better cars; you might stop it by having only Google-driven robot cars (so we go merry round with the discussion on how evil corporations are). And even then, if people can't kill themselves with a car, they'll find something else. Next, you'll be banning pedestrian bridges. Over one tenth of traffic deaths here are natural deaths. I.e. they are recorded in traffic death statistics, and they are used for justifying car and fuel taxes, but in fact it's the old man got a heart attack or a stroke, and died, and there's not a scratch to the car. Or just fell off the road on his bike. But it's still a traffic death here. Then there are the tragic accidents where a child is run over by a heavy goods vehicle. Most of this is not about speed; it's about noticing people who were in a blind spot. We've had three children killed in an few weeks in this nation in similar accidents, and that is too much. Here, some automatic detection technology will probably help a bit. But what's the bulk of traffic accidents? Mostly it's tremendous idiocy which is hard to legislate away. People who are DUI at four times the legal limit, are driving three times the speed limit, and running away from police because they don't have a driver's license, and they have no seat belts, and then they hit a tree and everyone in the car is killed. More survivable vehicles help, and in fact the development has been huge over the past years, but particularly the people who are gross idiots are also people who drive older cars, so they are less protected. And still, considering all this, I think road traffic is remarkably safe, and when I think how much people move around, accidents are few and far between.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    Bit of an understatement. You ever heard of an industry called big tobacco? Half a million killed a year, and they've made it seem cool to put these death sticks in your mouth. Honestly, even I think it looks pretty damn cool. Ciba-Geigy is another example. Read the reviews of the book: http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/055380653X http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/... These are just two random "success stories" I picked out of many failures. And even though I call them "successes" the results are still truly pathetic. if an individual rather than a corporation committed equivalent crimes they are tried in international court and hanged. Imagine the speed at which justice was served to Saddam Hussein versus a corporation.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      I still can't quite follow. What have Google, Amazon and the FTC got to do with big tobacco? It seems to me that you're on a crusade against big corporations, regardless of what they are doing (tobacco, cars, search services or book sales) and you think they are bad just because they are big.
      - crimsonalucard 11y ago
        You can't follow the topic of the thread because it diverged two inches off topic? Let me spell it out for you. 1. I quoted a part of the article saying how pathetic that the FTC is for only attacking Accidental app purchases by kids. I claim it's pathetic because many corporations have committed crimes that are worse up to and including murder. Please note that nowhere did I say corporations are bad because they are big. 2. Then someone said my comment was too extreme. 3. Then I used an example, citing other corporations and murder as an example to prove my point. 4. You claim you're too stupid to follow the thread because if I'm not talking about google or amazon then I'm "off topic." You also claim that I think corporations are bad because they are big when I clearly never said anything of the sort. I'm saying some of the biggest crimes corporations committed involve murder and that the FTC only taking care of accidental app purchases by kids is rather pathetic. Get it smart ass?
        11y ago
devit 11y ago
What about Apple, who, if antitrust law applies to them, would be the most egregious antitrust violator of all time in the tech industry, far worse than Google? Microsoft was convicted for merely including Internet Explorer along with Windows while Apple not only includes Safari, but prevents anyone else from offering browser engines (!) on its platform. As well as tying iPhone/iPad hardware to iOS and viceversa, iOS to App Store and viceversa, iOS development to OSX, OSX to Mac hardware, App Store to 30% fees on developers and being subject to Apple's arbitrary whims with no recourse including being prevented from competing with any Apple software (under the "cannot replicate system functions" clause). It seems the theory that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is saving them, but of course they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in even with 50% market share due to the large platform network effects.
- IBM 11y ago
  https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
- dagw 11y ago
  they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in Damage to whom? Damage to potential competitors? Sure, but that's fair game under antitrust laws. Damage to consumers? That argument is a lot harder to make.
  - devit 11y ago
    Well, let's start, I don't think this list is exhaustive. Consumers: - Unless you carry two mobile devices, you can't use several apps that are iOS-only or Android-only. This is because Apple refuses to support Android apps, and Android cannot easily support iOS apps because iOS is tied to iPhone/iPad hardware (and other tech/legal issues caused by Apple) - If you decide to only carry an iOS device, your freedom is restricted and you can only run software according to Apple's permission. Also, it's not obvious to the average consumer which categories of software they have been prevented from using by Apple (this includes or included things like a faithful port of Firefox or Chrome, BitCoin wallets, BitTorrent software, games including the confederate flag and so on). - If you want to run iOS software, you have to pay Apple several hundred dollars more than you would in a competitive market for iOS devices, and can only choose between devices Apple makes Software developers: - Reaching a large majority of mobile users requires writing the software twice, due to existence of iOS and the fact that Android cannot support iOS apps and Apple refuses to support Android apps - Reaching the large market share of iOS users forces you to support Apple's practices, buy and manage Mac hardware, warp your software at additional cost to fit Apple whims, wait days to get updates delivered (if Apple decides to accept them) and pay 30% of your revenue for a service that has at most 5% marginal cost to Apple - Some software cannot be written for iOS because Apple doesn't allow it, reducing the market for it and potentially making it not viable to develop it Phone/tablet makers: - Lots of people only want to carry one device and want/need to use iOS apps (due to lock-in and exclusive software), so the market for new mobile devices is reduced even if they are better in all aspects than existing ones Society: - Less innovation happens due to Apple's restrictions on software and the reduced market for non-iOS devices - Freedom is being curtailed by Apple while offering users benefits for accepting that curtailed freedom, contributing to change cultural norms to a state where it is acceptable for such a company to decide which software and hardware is allowed in the marketplace, and in general what businesses and customers are allowed to do and publish If Apple were split into three truly independent companies, one selling hardware, one selling iOS and OSX, and one offering the App Store and other online services, most of these issues would no longer be present. Google is also guilty of several things similar to what Apple is doing, although they are generally less restrictive and it's possible to opt out, and thus less of an issue.
venomsnake 11y ago
> The Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement with the Justice Department to spearhead an investigation of Google’s Android business, the people said. FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because the matter is confidential. So we are going after the most open platform for which switching any part of the system is going to the playstore/F-Droid instead of the apple shaped elephant in the room. And Apple is the biggest single vendor of smartphones in US ... go figure.
- delinka 11y ago
  "Biggest single vendor" perhaps, but certainly not a monopoly on smart phones, nor smart phone operating systems, nor smart phone apps ... Just because they take the lions share of the industry's profits doesn't mean that they sell a monopolistic number of devices.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    google has even less of a monopoly. You cannot be monopolist with GPL product.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      If not already, you should read this article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Here we go again. A group of smaller companies that can't compete on their own merits point the hapless FTC in the direction of the most successful company, paint them as a monopolist, and sit back and watch the fun. Sales of popcorn must be soaring. The notion that "bundling" is anti-competitive is so 1995. No one in the real world minds bundling, no one is hurt by it, and everyone would be inconvenienced by some kind of unbundling solution to satisfy the 10 people in the world who oppose Google's right to package its services together. There are real and egregious abusers of the system--bribing federal judges, giving kickbacks to food inspectors, paying off legislators and Congressional staffers to slant the laws and regulations in favor of a particular supplier--and these do hurt honest competitors and cause us all to pay more for goods and services. But to go after a large company merely because it's large and influential and highly successful... These regulators are simply out of control.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  You mean like how Google is a big time donor to quite a few Congresspeople, who write letters and vote on behalf of Google in our Congress? See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Any evidence of wrongdoing here? Many interest groups donate and lobby. You want to ban all donations and lobbying by private for-profit organizations?
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      Unfortunately, buying off Congresspeople is currently legal. It doesn't make it any less horrifically immoral. And anyways, your comment is irrelevant, as I was responding to the parent comment. The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators. Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn advocated DIRECTLY for Google.
ocean3 11y ago
"who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform" - isn't that the same across other OS. MS still has around 90% desktop share and don't they prioritize over IE and Bing search.
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  Yes. But it's not harming consumers in the US (anymore) as less than 40% of people are using IE on the desktop, chrome is the dominate browser. In the EU, MS has to give people the choice of browser on install for this reason.
  - ocean3 11y ago
    Why would usage matter here since FTC seems to be considering bundling.
    - Ensorceled 11y ago
      Pragmatics. It's hard to win a anti-trust case at the best of times. When the "locked in" browser is actually losing the race, it's really hard to win.
blinkingled 11y ago
Microsoft is behind it at least in the EU probe. I would surprised if they had nothing to do with US probe as well. That aside if the whole idea for the probe is that Google prefers their own services on Android while restricting others - it's going to be a tough one to substantiate given Microsoft already can ship all of their apps as replacement to Google's - Cortana for example. If Antitrust wasn't just about market share but also profit share then Apple is doing far more to invite a probe than Google in the Smart Phone market.
Grazester 11y ago
Isn't the prices of using Google's play services for "free" by manufacturers that you must include so many of Google's Apps? I mean surely they can expect Google to provide it services without a cost or catch. If manufacturers don't want to do it then they could still use Android san the play services like a lot of Chinese manufacturers are doing. I find these anti trust investigations against Google that are based on the fact that manufacturers have to bundle Google's App ridiculous.
- LLWM 11y ago
  Sounds identical to the arguments MS used back in the 90s. They lost.
  - Grazester 11y ago
    Windows was free? You were paying for your OS which was distributed by the company you were paying for it from.That is their source or revenue. The Google's play services is Google's revenue stream. Hope that made sense. In my head it does. LOL
xlm1717 11y ago
There are a few interesting questions here. My gut reaction was to say, it doesn't restrict access to Android, anyone can fork it at will. But the specific issue they address is Google's suite of Android apps. I know for me as an end user, it's very inconvenient when I don't want to use Google's Android, but still want access to the Google Play Store. If you use Cyanogenmod or other custom apps, you have to download google apps. If you use Amazon's Fire devices, the process is a little more inconvenient. On the one hand you have to wonder whether this harms adoption of third-party Android devices, running Cyanogenmod, FireOS, OxygenOS, or any of a number of other custom Android forks. However, Amazon has become somewhat successful in introducing an alternate app marketplace, and this leads to the other question. Is Google's inclusion of Google apps only on Google android harmful to other app developers? I know personally, if I had a choice between the Google Play Store and the Amazon Appstore, I would choose Google Play 100%. It just has more of the apps I want. But if you want to give users an option, how would you do it? I suppose a scenario similar to what the EU imposed on Microsoft would work, where on activation you would pick from a list of appstores to download to your device. This would at least give users options. I also know personally that I would just stick with the default Maps and Chrome apps if they were bundled with the device instead of giving me a choice of downloading alternate maps and browser apps. This makes it hard for developers of those apps to compete. Ultimately, this just goes to show that you should take the claim that Android is "open" with a grain of salt. Not only is Google restricting access to Android, there's also this troubling bit from the article: >“When we say we’re concerned, it’s not only because [the FTC] didn’t do a good investigation the first time around, or the fact that they didn’t protect the confidentiality of the people who complained," Reback said, “but also because they seem to take directions from Google.”
cromwellian 11y ago
Here are the options one has when trying to make a phone: 1) Write your own OS from scratch 2) Borrow an existing OS (e.g. Linux) and build all of rest of the layers and services (e.g. Tizen) 3) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Android), and build all of the rest of the layers and services (FireOS, etc) 4) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Google Android), and all the layers and services What vendors seem to be saying is #1, #2, and #3 are "too hard" and that consumers are demanding Google's Apps and Services. What these manufacturers want to do is, design some commodity hardware, put on the stuff consumers are demanding (Google's services), but then load them up with other stuff (which many consumers would call bloatware or junk). But how easy should one expect it to be to ship a phone? Seriously, 10 or 20 years ago, you not only had to make a lot of custom hardware design, but you had to have a lot of inhouse embedded software engineering. These days, most of this stuff is available off the shelf, and Chinese manufacturers can slap together a new phone and drop Android in it extremely quickly, all at low cost. If there was no Android, and just two proprietary platforms (iOS + Windows, or iOS + Symbian), their situation would be even worse. Android's brand already has bad branding from fragmentation and security issues. Paradox of choice tends to drive conformity and commodification, so I'm not sure the situation would be much better otherwise. If you want to launch consumer phone hardware and get lots of customers, IMHO, you should expect it to be hard and differentiating and have to put in enormous software work. I honestly don't think Android manufacturers are going to standout on small software tweaks and packaging of apps. If you're an Android manufacturer and you think the key to standing out in innovation, I don't think it's going to come from skinning Android and replacing one of apps on the homescreen. Just IMHO, but this seems more like companies wanting to take shortcuts without putting in the hardwork that Apple or Google have made to convince users of the value of a custom platform.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Hi Ray. Remember how I told you exactly how the MADA was an illegal violation of antitrust law? And now multiple countries worldwide are investigating Google on exactly those claims? - Jacob Weisz I disagree the situation would be worse without Google. In China, where Google isn't competing, there are more platforms available. The only non-Google Android devices that have an appreciable market share are able to thrive. And as for using 'user experience' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why is Nexus still so unpopular if Google's so good at UX? And as for using 'security' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why doesn't the MADA contain anything about security update requirements, and why are so many Androids with Google Apps still vulnerable to Stagefright and even old versions of OpenSSL with Heartbleed?

46 points by Rifu 11y ago

IBM 11y ago

Must be because Europe can't compete with American tech companies.

nisdec 11y ago
SAP?

crimsonalucard 11y ago

> In the last two years, the FTC has shown it will pursue big technology companies in consumer-fraud cases. It has accused Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. of wrongly billing consumers for unauthorized purchases made by children on mobile applications. Google and Apple settled the FTC complaint and agreed to refund money to consumers. Amazon said it would fight the lawsuit. That's a pathetic track record. Corporations have done crimes equivalent to mass murder and the "biggest case" the ftc has taken on is refunding a fucking app store purchase that was probably my fault for not keeping an eye on my kid? I almost hope amazon wins.

ptaipale 11y ago
"equivalent to mass murder"? Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  The company [GM] continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled and paid compensation for 124 deaths.[1] No, not really an overstatement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    It is interesting that people focus so intensely on these deaths while almost not caring about the other 32K car deaths per year (plus hundreds of thousands of injuries and billions of dollars in damages) just in the U.S. alone. One month is the equivalent of a 9/11, for which the nation mobilized and waged war halfway around the world. In my opinion all this bloviating about ignition switches, bundled browsers etc. misses the mark. We should be demanding much safer and more survivable vehicles. I sure don't want to die on the road or see my loved ones crippled by some drunk driver. Let's legislate survivability at highway speeds. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works--collision avoidance, prison for DUI, explosive bumpers--anything to reduce those numbers.
    - Ensorceled 11y ago
      I'm not focusing on those deaths at all, they are just one clear instance of a corporation killing a bunch of people. I'm appalled that you can simply run somebody over with a car and then say "oops, accidents happen" and walk away. I'm appalled that safety standards are so lax. I'm appalled that drunk drivers are not treated exactly like somebody who walks around a fires a gun randomly. I'm appalled that people who have become a driving hazard because of illness or infirmity are allowed to keep driving "for their dignity". The 32K deaths is why the self-driving car will rapidly take over the market once it is viable. The insurance companies will see to it.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      I don't know exact statistics about the US, but in my country (Finland), it is getting very difficult to reduce the number of deaths in traffic by the kind of actions you propose. First of all, around one fifth of people killed in traffic have committed suicide. They take their car, take off the seatbelt, and drive as fast as they can and hit an oncoming heavy goods vehicle. That's bad, because it is very traumatic to the people who drive trucks and transport stuff. They get injured physically, and even worse, emotionally. You can't stop this by making better cars; you might stop it by having only Google-driven robot cars (so we go merry round with the discussion on how evil corporations are). And even then, if people can't kill themselves with a car, they'll find something else. Next, you'll be banning pedestrian bridges. Over one tenth of traffic deaths here are natural deaths. I.e. they are recorded in traffic death statistics, and they are used for justifying car and fuel taxes, but in fact it's the old man got a heart attack or a stroke, and died, and there's not a scratch to the car. Or just fell off the road on his bike. But it's still a traffic death here. Then there are the tragic accidents where a child is run over by a heavy goods vehicle. Most of this is not about speed; it's about noticing people who were in a blind spot. We've had three children killed in an few weeks in this nation in similar accidents, and that is too much. Here, some automatic detection technology will probably help a bit. But what's the bulk of traffic accidents? Mostly it's tremendous idiocy which is hard to legislate away. People who are DUI at four times the legal limit, are driving three times the speed limit, and running away from police because they don't have a driver's license, and they have no seat belts, and then they hit a tree and everyone in the car is killed. More survivable vehicles help, and in fact the development has been huge over the past years, but particularly the people who are gross idiots are also people who drive older cars, so they are less protected. And still, considering all this, I think road traffic is remarkably safe, and when I think how much people move around, accidents are few and far between.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  Bit of an understatement. You ever heard of an industry called big tobacco? Half a million killed a year, and they've made it seem cool to put these death sticks in your mouth. Honestly, even I think it looks pretty damn cool. Ciba-Geigy is another example. Read the reviews of the book: http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/055380653X http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/... These are just two random "success stories" I picked out of many failures. And even though I call them "successes" the results are still truly pathetic. if an individual rather than a corporation committed equivalent crimes they are tried in international court and hanged. Imagine the speed at which justice was served to Saddam Hussein versus a corporation.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    I still can't quite follow. What have Google, Amazon and the FTC got to do with big tobacco? It seems to me that you're on a crusade against big corporations, regardless of what they are doing (tobacco, cars, search services or book sales) and you think they are bad just because they are big.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      You can't follow the topic of the thread because it diverged two inches off topic? Let me spell it out for you. 1. I quoted a part of the article saying how pathetic that the FTC is for only attacking Accidental app purchases by kids. I claim it's pathetic because many corporations have committed crimes that are worse up to and including murder. Please note that nowhere did I say corporations are bad because they are big. 2. Then someone said my comment was too extreme. 3. Then I used an example, citing other corporations and murder as an example to prove my point. 4. You claim you're too stupid to follow the thread because if I'm not talking about google or amazon then I'm "off topic." You also claim that I think corporations are bad because they are big when I clearly never said anything of the sort. I'm saying some of the biggest crimes corporations committed involve murder and that the FTC only taking care of accidental app purchases by kids is rather pathetic. Get it smart ass?
      - 11y ago

devit 11y ago

What about Apple, who, if antitrust law applies to them, would be the most egregious antitrust violator of all time in the tech industry, far worse than Google? Microsoft was convicted for merely including Internet Explorer along with Windows while Apple not only includes Safari, but prevents anyone else from offering browser engines (!) on its platform. As well as tying iPhone/iPad hardware to iOS and viceversa, iOS to App Store and viceversa, iOS development to OSX, OSX to Mac hardware, App Store to 30% fees on developers and being subject to Apple's arbitrary whims with no recourse including being prevented from competing with any Apple software (under the "cannot replicate system functions" clause). It seems the theory that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is saving them, but of course they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in even with 50% market share due to the large platform network effects.

IBM 11y ago
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
dagw 11y ago
they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in Damage to whom? Damage to potential competitors? Sure, but that's fair game under antitrust laws. Damage to consumers? That argument is a lot harder to make.
- devit 11y ago
  Well, let's start, I don't think this list is exhaustive. Consumers: - Unless you carry two mobile devices, you can't use several apps that are iOS-only or Android-only. This is because Apple refuses to support Android apps, and Android cannot easily support iOS apps because iOS is tied to iPhone/iPad hardware (and other tech/legal issues caused by Apple) - If you decide to only carry an iOS device, your freedom is restricted and you can only run software according to Apple's permission. Also, it's not obvious to the average consumer which categories of software they have been prevented from using by Apple (this includes or included things like a faithful port of Firefox or Chrome, BitCoin wallets, BitTorrent software, games including the confederate flag and so on). - If you want to run iOS software, you have to pay Apple several hundred dollars more than you would in a competitive market for iOS devices, and can only choose between devices Apple makes Software developers: - Reaching a large majority of mobile users requires writing the software twice, due to existence of iOS and the fact that Android cannot support iOS apps and Apple refuses to support Android apps - Reaching the large market share of iOS users forces you to support Apple's practices, buy and manage Mac hardware, warp your software at additional cost to fit Apple whims, wait days to get updates delivered (if Apple decides to accept them) and pay 30% of your revenue for a service that has at most 5% marginal cost to Apple - Some software cannot be written for iOS because Apple doesn't allow it, reducing the market for it and potentially making it not viable to develop it Phone/tablet makers: - Lots of people only want to carry one device and want/need to use iOS apps (due to lock-in and exclusive software), so the market for new mobile devices is reduced even if they are better in all aspects than existing ones Society: - Less innovation happens due to Apple's restrictions on software and the reduced market for non-iOS devices - Freedom is being curtailed by Apple while offering users benefits for accepting that curtailed freedom, contributing to change cultural norms to a state where it is acceptable for such a company to decide which software and hardware is allowed in the marketplace, and in general what businesses and customers are allowed to do and publish If Apple were split into three truly independent companies, one selling hardware, one selling iOS and OSX, and one offering the App Store and other online services, most of these issues would no longer be present. Google is also guilty of several things similar to what Apple is doing, although they are generally less restrictive and it's possible to opt out, and thus less of an issue.

venomsnake 11y ago

> The Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement with the Justice Department to spearhead an investigation of Google’s Android business, the people said. FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because the matter is confidential. So we are going after the most open platform for which switching any part of the system is going to the playstore/F-Droid instead of the apple shaped elephant in the room. And Apple is the biggest single vendor of smartphones in US ... go figure.

delinka 11y ago
"Biggest single vendor" perhaps, but certainly not a monopoly on smart phones, nor smart phone operating systems, nor smart phone apps ... Just because they take the lions share of the industry's profits doesn't mean that they sell a monopolistic number of devices.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  google has even less of a monopoly. You cannot be monopolist with GPL product.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    If not already, you should read this article: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Here we go again. A group of smaller companies that can't compete on their own merits point the hapless FTC in the direction of the most successful company, paint them as a monopolist, and sit back and watch the fun. Sales of popcorn must be soaring. The notion that "bundling" is anti-competitive is so 1995. No one in the real world minds bundling, no one is hurt by it, and everyone would be inconvenienced by some kind of unbundling solution to satisfy the 10 people in the world who oppose Google's right to package its services together. There are real and egregious abusers of the system--bribing federal judges, giving kickbacks to food inspectors, paying off legislators and Congressional staffers to slant the laws and regulations in favor of a particular supplier--and these do hurt honest competitors and cause us all to pay more for goods and services. But to go after a large company merely because it's large and influential and highly successful... These regulators are simply out of control.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
You mean like how Google is a big time donor to quite a few Congresspeople, who write letters and vote on behalf of Google in our Congress? See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Any evidence of wrongdoing here? Many interest groups donate and lobby. You want to ban all donations and lobbying by private for-profit organizations?
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Unfortunately, buying off Congresspeople is currently legal. It doesn't make it any less horrifically immoral. And anyways, your comment is irrelevant, as I was responding to the parent comment. The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators. Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn advocated DIRECTLY for Google.

ocean3 11y ago

"who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform" - isn't that the same across other OS. MS still has around 90% desktop share and don't they prioritize over IE and Bing search.

Ensorceled 11y ago
Yes. But it's not harming consumers in the US (anymore) as less than 40% of people are using IE on the desktop, chrome is the dominate browser. In the EU, MS has to give people the choice of browser on install for this reason.
- ocean3 11y ago
  Why would usage matter here since FTC seems to be considering bundling.
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    Pragmatics. It's hard to win a anti-trust case at the best of times. When the "locked in" browser is actually losing the race, it's really hard to win.

blinkingled 11y ago

Microsoft is behind it at least in the EU probe. I would surprised if they had nothing to do with US probe as well. That aside if the whole idea for the probe is that Google prefers their own services on Android while restricting others - it's going to be a tough one to substantiate given Microsoft already can ship all of their apps as replacement to Google's - Cortana for example. If Antitrust wasn't just about market share but also profit share then Apple is doing far more to invite a probe than Google in the Smart Phone market.

Grazester 11y ago

Isn't the prices of using Google's play services for "free" by manufacturers that you must include so many of Google's Apps? I mean surely they can expect Google to provide it services without a cost or catch. If manufacturers don't want to do it then they could still use Android san the play services like a lot of Chinese manufacturers are doing. I find these anti trust investigations against Google that are based on the fact that manufacturers have to bundle Google's App ridiculous.

LLWM 11y ago
Sounds identical to the arguments MS used back in the 90s. They lost.
- Grazester 11y ago
  Windows was free? You were paying for your OS which was distributed by the company you were paying for it from.That is their source or revenue. The Google's play services is Google's revenue stream. Hope that made sense. In my head it does. LOL

xlm1717 11y ago

There are a few interesting questions here. My gut reaction was to say, it doesn't restrict access to Android, anyone can fork it at will. But the specific issue they address is Google's suite of Android apps. I know for me as an end user, it's very inconvenient when I don't want to use Google's Android, but still want access to the Google Play Store. If you use Cyanogenmod or other custom apps, you have to download google apps. If you use Amazon's Fire devices, the process is a little more inconvenient. On the one hand you have to wonder whether this harms adoption of third-party Android devices, running Cyanogenmod, FireOS, OxygenOS, or any of a number of other custom Android forks. However, Amazon has become somewhat successful in introducing an alternate app marketplace, and this leads to the other question. Is Google's inclusion of Google apps only on Google android harmful to other app developers? I know personally, if I had a choice between the Google Play Store and the Amazon Appstore, I would choose Google Play 100%. It just has more of the apps I want. But if you want to give users an option, how would you do it? I suppose a scenario similar to what the EU imposed on Microsoft would work, where on activation you would pick from a list of appstores to download to your device. This would at least give users options. I also know personally that I would just stick with the default Maps and Chrome apps if they were bundled with the device instead of giving me a choice of downloading alternate maps and browser apps. This makes it hard for developers of those apps to compete. Ultimately, this just goes to show that you should take the claim that Android is "open" with a grain of salt. Not only is Google restricting access to Android, there's also this troubling bit from the article: >“When we say we’re concerned, it’s not only because [the FTC] didn’t do a good investigation the first time around, or the fact that they didn’t protect the confidentiality of the people who complained," Reback said, “but also because they seem to take directions from Google.”

cromwellian 11y ago

Here are the options one has when trying to make a phone: 1) Write your own OS from scratch 2) Borrow an existing OS (e.g. Linux) and build all of rest of the layers and services (e.g. Tizen) 3) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Android), and build all of the rest of the layers and services (FireOS, etc) 4) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Google Android), and all the layers and services What vendors seem to be saying is #1, #2, and #3 are "too hard" and that consumers are demanding Google's Apps and Services. What these manufacturers want to do is, design some commodity hardware, put on the stuff consumers are demanding (Google's services), but then load them up with other stuff (which many consumers would call bloatware or junk). But how easy should one expect it to be to ship a phone? Seriously, 10 or 20 years ago, you not only had to make a lot of custom hardware design, but you had to have a lot of inhouse embedded software engineering. These days, most of this stuff is available off the shelf, and Chinese manufacturers can slap together a new phone and drop Android in it extremely quickly, all at low cost. If there was no Android, and just two proprietary platforms (iOS + Windows, or iOS + Symbian), their situation would be even worse. Android's brand already has bad branding from fragmentation and security issues. Paradox of choice tends to drive conformity and commodification, so I'm not sure the situation would be much better otherwise. If you want to launch consumer phone hardware and get lots of customers, IMHO, you should expect it to be hard and differentiating and have to put in enormous software work. I honestly don't think Android manufacturers are going to standout on small software tweaks and packaging of apps. If you're an Android manufacturer and you think the key to standing out in innovation, I don't think it's going to come from skinning Android and replacing one of apps on the homescreen. Just IMHO, but this seems more like companies wanting to take shortcuts without putting in the hardwork that Apple or Google have made to convince users of the value of a custom platform.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Hi Ray. Remember how I told you exactly how the MADA was an illegal violation of antitrust law? And now multiple countries worldwide are investigating Google on exactly those claims? - Jacob Weisz I disagree the situation would be worse without Google. In China, where Google isn't competing, there are more platforms available. The only non-Google Android devices that have an appreciable market share are able to thrive. And as for using 'user experience' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why is Nexus still so unpopular if Google's so good at UX? And as for using 'security' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why doesn't the MADA contain anything about security update requirements, and why are so many Androids with Google Apps still vulnerable to Stagefright and even old versions of OpenSSL with Heartbleed?