3 ms·

Antitrust: EU Commission Lodges Complaints on Google for Android OS

34 points by Aissen 11y ago

iam-TJ 11y ago
As I mentioned in an earlier story this week about the rumour of an antitrust action, this is very reminiscent of the Microsoft antitrust bundling convictions. This seems to be the crux from the EU commission fact-sheet [0]: "Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called "Android fork"). The open-source model of course does not raise competition concerns – on the contrary. The Commission's concerns relate to the conditions for use of Google's proprietary apps and services on Android devices, which are not open source. In particular, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks. EU antitrust rules allow dominant companies to put in place restrictions only when they are objectively justified. However, to date, Google has not been able to show this in relation to the restrictions in the "Anti-Fragmentation Agreements". The documents in the case are at [1]. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm [1] http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40099 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
andybak 11y ago
I'm conflicted on this from a practical point of view. It seems fairly clear to me that Android has got better the more Google asserts control. OEMs and carriers can't be trusted not to screw things up and the consumer tends to suffer. Whilst there's good arguments in favour of forcing Google to allow alternative search, email etc services to be installed - I suspect it will result in a worse user experience for most people.
- nugget 11y ago
  Worse user experience in the short term but much better for everyone (except Google) in the long term as new ideas and companies have a chance to survive and grow on the platform. It's very reminiscent of Microsoft and IE.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
I'm so glad this is happening. My only fear is that Google will end up making the deals they make manufacturers sign different by region of distribution: That this decision won't help those of us living and buying devices outside the EU region. I really hope Google realizes that their agreements on Android are not in keeping with the spirit of Google's vision and morals, and apply changes to their business globally.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fkooman 11y ago
What I'm missing is a list of things that Google has to fix, that is in the benefit of the "consumer". It seems that most things that would be in the benefit of the consumer have nothing to do with Google, but with the shitty manufacturers that don't provide (security) updates and stuff their phones with crap. Things that would help: - force manufacturers to have an AOSP build without Google Apps or any of their customizations, updated when needed (security, new major/minor releases etc.); - force manufacturers to allow users to exercise the 4 freedoms (FSF) with the above AOSP build up to and including the baseband/firmware/drivers; - allow manufacturers to do whatever they want for their default OS installed when the user buys it (possibly signing a deal with Google for Google Apps etc.) I keep on dreaming :-)
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  There's no legal reason to mandate FSF's philosophy, but banning the Android MADA has some huge consumer benefits, because it changes Google's priorities with Android. For instance, right now, the Play Store, Chrome, etc. are used as leverage to get OEMs to sign the agreement. Without that, Google's value proposition changes. No longer does it make sense for them to withhold these. Google should want the profits from app or book sales and stuff on all Android devices. Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to install Chrome? Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to buy movies from Play? And if Google opens up availability of their Android apps and services, this changes the dynamic considerably. They'll no longer be able to guarantee that any given Android device they offer apps on has the Play Services malware component. Play Services will need to be unbundled: Google apps will need to include everything they need to run on open source Android. Not only does this open up the opportunity for Google services on other Android devices, it also means Google has a strong incentive to take some of their existing proprietary Play Services features and contribute them to open source, so that their apps can take advantage. Additionally, Google has long used security updates as a stick to force OEMs to upgrade to the latest versions of Android. Without Android MADA level controls, Google will not be able to do that. So Google's best bet is to provide long-term servicing of their platform. Android versions will need to receive security updates for longer, and they'll need to be made as easy as possible for OEMs to integrate into their builds. Expect better written platform code. But the biggest thing is that consumers will have choice. No longer will 85% of all phones in a carrier store be nearly identical clones of Google's preferred configuration. There'll be more reason for OEMs to innovate in different ways. People will have non-Google choices available in store. Think about what Samsung could offer now that they couldn't before: Customize your phone's OS on order. Maybe Samsung offers a "Galaxy" config with all of Samsung's apps, or a Pure Google config with all of Google apps. And a Microsoft config for people who are going to use it at work with their Windows-based networks! Select the one you want, and Samsung can offer that, they're no longer beholden to an agreement that forces them to preload a prescribed set of apps.

34 points by Aissen 11y ago

As I mentioned in an earlier story this week about the rumour of an antitrust action, this is very reminiscent of the Microsoft antitrust bundling convictions. This seems to be the crux from the EU commission fact-sheet [0]: "Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called "Android fork"). The open-source model of course does not raise competition concerns – on the contrary. The Commission's concerns relate to the conditions for use of Google's proprietary apps and services on Android devices, which are not open source. In particular, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks. EU antitrust rules allow dominant companies to put in place restrictions only when they are objectively justified. However, to date, Google has not been able to show this in relation to the restrictions in the "Anti-Fragmentation Agreements". The documents in the case are at [1]. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm [1] http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40099 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...

andybak 11y ago

I'm conflicted on this from a practical point of view. It seems fairly clear to me that Android has got better the more Google asserts control. OEMs and carriers can't be trusted not to screw things up and the consumer tends to suffer. Whilst there's good arguments in favour of forcing Google to allow alternative search, email etc services to be installed - I suspect it will result in a worse user experience for most people.

nugget 11y ago
Worse user experience in the short term but much better for everyone (except Google) in the long term as new ideas and companies have a chance to survive and grow on the platform. It's very reminiscent of Microsoft and IE.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

I'm so glad this is happening. My only fear is that Google will end up making the deals they make manufacturers sign different by region of distribution: That this decision won't help those of us living and buying devices outside the EU region. I really hope Google realizes that their agreements on Android are not in keeping with the spirit of Google's vision and morals, and apply changes to their business globally.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

fkooman 11y ago

What I'm missing is a list of things that Google has to fix, that is in the benefit of the "consumer". It seems that most things that would be in the benefit of the consumer have nothing to do with Google, but with the shitty manufacturers that don't provide (security) updates and stuff their phones with crap. Things that would help: - force manufacturers to have an AOSP build without Google Apps or any of their customizations, updated when needed (security, new major/minor releases etc.); - force manufacturers to allow users to exercise the 4 freedoms (FSF) with the above AOSP build up to and including the baseband/firmware/drivers; - allow manufacturers to do whatever they want for their default OS installed when the user buys it (possibly signing a deal with Google for Google Apps etc.) I keep on dreaming :-)

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
There's no legal reason to mandate FSF's philosophy, but banning the Android MADA has some huge consumer benefits, because it changes Google's priorities with Android. For instance, right now, the Play Store, Chrome, etc. are used as leverage to get OEMs to sign the agreement. Without that, Google's value proposition changes. No longer does it make sense for them to withhold these. Google should want the profits from app or book sales and stuff on all Android devices. Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to install Chrome? Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to buy movies from Play? And if Google opens up availability of their Android apps and services, this changes the dynamic considerably. They'll no longer be able to guarantee that any given Android device they offer apps on has the Play Services malware component. Play Services will need to be unbundled: Google apps will need to include everything they need to run on open source Android. Not only does this open up the opportunity for Google services on other Android devices, it also means Google has a strong incentive to take some of their existing proprietary Play Services features and contribute them to open source, so that their apps can take advantage. Additionally, Google has long used security updates as a stick to force OEMs to upgrade to the latest versions of Android. Without Android MADA level controls, Google will not be able to do that. So Google's best bet is to provide long-term servicing of their platform. Android versions will need to receive security updates for longer, and they'll need to be made as easy as possible for OEMs to integrate into their builds. Expect better written platform code. But the biggest thing is that consumers will have choice. No longer will 85% of all phones in a carrier store be nearly identical clones of Google's preferred configuration. There'll be more reason for OEMs to innovate in different ways. People will have non-Google choices available in store. Think about what Samsung could offer now that they couldn't before: Customize your phone's OS on order. Maybe Samsung offers a "Galaxy" config with all of Samsung's apps, or a Pure Google config with all of Google apps. And a Microsoft config for people who are going to use it at work with their Windows-based networks! Select the one you want, and Samsung can offer that, they're no longer beholden to an agreement that forces them to preload a prescribed set of apps.