8 ms·
Google's Answer to EU Antitrust Complaints on Android
- buro9 11y agoUh-oh. Google don't understand the EU if they believe that the way to fight the EU is to use a press release.
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoSo far, Google's way of fighting antitrust suits has been to pretty much claim that the government is wrong and then not change anything. Some countries where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling, they've just left or closed the relevant service. Google seems to have a questionable understanding that they're supposed to comply with the law. But I'm not sure they can afford to lose the whole EU market.
- Oletros 11y ago> Some countries where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling, they've just left or closed the relevant service. Apart of Spain with Google News, and it was a law that was criticized by everyone but the big newspapers can you give us examples of Google closing services when they "don't like the result"?
- NetStrikeForce 11y agoIn Germany they were going down the same route as in Spain, but finally reached an agreement.
- Oletros 11y agoNo, in Germany they complied with the law, they didn't pull off the service
- NetStrikeForce 11y agoI don't know why would you say that, but that was pretty much a win for Google and not a defeat: http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/5/7160587/german-publisher-axel-springer-google-news http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/5/7160587/german-publisher-a... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr-idUSKBN0IP1YT20141105 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr-idUSKBN... If you have any evidence that Google is paying that "tax", please show it.
- Oletros 11y agoI didn't said that Google paid the tax or that Google lost. IO said that Google didn't pulled off the service from Germany. They complied with the law and didn't put snippets
- chatmasta 11y agoThey closed search in China.
- cowl 11y agoWell, they are a FOR-PROFIT Company and as any such entity when the cost of doing business is greater than the Profit (direct or indirect), they need to just close that branch. You are surely referring to the tentative of several EU countries to get Google to pay newspapers while providing them with free referral links from a product that has no profit for them. The problem with EU lately is that it's trying to protect businesses instead of consumers. This antitrust review is just another case influenced by Microsoft and Russian Search engines because no user is impacted negatively by Google policies in this case.
- sesutton 11y agoHas anyone ever successfully fought an EU anti-trust action?
- buro9 11y agoYes, many times. You can search these things: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm If you haven't got it dismissed then the best outcome is a set of commitments whereby you promise not to do the worst of the things you were allegedly doing (without admitting that they were bad things, accepting liability, etc). Most of the successful parties, if you go through the list quickly by filtering on antitrust and cartel, appear to be EU companies. An interesting question would be to analyse the full list (I only looked at the first page of results) and ask: Is the EU is anti-US, or whether US companies fail to understand the EU and it's concerns? The first page of data appears to suggest that US companies perform worse than EU companies at challenging the commission. My personal opinion is that it is the latter. The (mostly North American) Googlers I spoke to all didn't seem to understand the case the EU made about the right to privacy, nor this one either... yet European engineers seemed to qualify their statements with more understanding of the bizarre balancing acts the EU puts itself into.
- ninedays 11y ago>Any manufacturer can then choose to load the suite of Google apps to their device and freely add other apps as well. "Choose" is probably not the right word here.
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoExactly. If you don't sign Google's agreement and include Google's app bundle, your product fails in the market. You cannot successfully sell an Android smartphone today without Google Apps, unless you're in China where Google Apps isn't available.
- yulaow 11y agoTo be more specific, you can't sell it even without just the google app store and be successful, except if you have already a very big ecosystem behind (like Amazon)
- wstrange 11y agoIn other words, consumers really like Google Apps, and the alternative apps are not desirable. What can Google do about that?
- gambiting 11y agoGive away their apps for free without any agreements, apparently. It's like trying to force Tesla to give everyone their motors, because customers want Tesla motors but can't get them without buying a product from Tesla - therefore Tesla should be forced to let other other companies build cars with their motors /s.
- NetStrikeForce 11y agoPeople liked IE. Not everyone and not forever, but people really liked it. We all know how did that end. As an Android user, I couldn't give less fucks about G+, Hangouts, Music, Books, Sheets, Docs and probably some other me-too product launched by Google and still I have them installed in my phone and Google keeps trying to shove them down my throat. I don't need any of these for the Play store to work, that is the only place I can install software from unless I downgrade my phone's security, but apparently you imply I do. Also, Tesla is not a de-facto monopoly on several European markets, which is the problem here. If Apple or Microsoft had >80% of the market and provided the OS needed by every manufacturer (but two), then they could face similar issues.
- b101010 11y agoSome of the commissions objections are outlined here, does anyone have a better source? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
- sonnyp 11y agohttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40099 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
- tacos 11y agoThere comes a time when the only competition for a massive corporation is governments. And you can't win that one (AT&T) even when you do (Microsoft). Tread carefully Google (and Apple...)
- JamesBaxter 11y agoI'm not smart enough to know whether Google is breaking antitrust rules or not but if they are I don't see how Apple aren't too.
- ultramancool 11y agoI think it's because things like Google Maps and Google Search are absolutely dominant in their industry and they try to use default Android apps (forced on manufacturers via the Play Store contract) to try to break into additional industries (like Google+, Photos, etc). The idea being that forcing these additional apps, just to get Play Store is anti-competitive. I'm not sure I'd agree, but there's an argument to be had at least. It's possible Apple could be too, but they've not used this to try to break into as many industries as Google has AFAIK.
- strange_quark 11y agoApple doesn't have a dominant market position, especially in the EU.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rerixo 11y agoThe law which allows the EU to investigate Google’s alleged anti-competitive behaviour has the requirement of being between 2+ parties (i.e. Google and manufacturer), so that’s why Apple is exempt. I'm not sure if their dominant market share is actually a consideration, but it certainly gets the attention of the EU.
- pmontra 11y agoBecause Apple builds its own phones and nobody else can use iOS. Google wouldn't be subject to this investigation if it didn't licence Android. If it built its own Nexus phones they would be in the same position Apple is. Instead it's in the position Microsoft was in the 90's.
- JamesBaxter 11y ago
- jfuhrman 11y ago> In order to get the Play Store, an OEM has to agree to install all the other ‘required’ Google apps including Google Voice Search, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk (now Hangouts), Google Maps and so on. >The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider.
- simula67 11y agoGoogle develops and distributes Android Open Source OS for free. The costs for these activities are offset by Google's revenues from the other products like Google+. This is Android's business model. Also many phones come pre-installed with many other apps. Google does not firbid this. All of this is mentioned in TFA.
- deelowe 11y agoYou do realize though, there's an intentional segregation there. Android is not the play store or any of those apps. Not at this point. Android is that OS itself and just the OS. If antitrust is an issue, then the case needs to be made against the distribution of apps that require licensing (google's apps and the store), not against android itself, which is fairly unrestricted.
- dublinben 11y agoIf you read the original European Commission press release, this complaint is exactly about "google's apps and the store, not against android itself."
- scholia 11y ago> Android is that OS itself and just the OS. Actually, Android is a Google trademark and you have to do what Google says if you want to use it. Amazon uses AOSP but it can't call it Android. This makes sense. Anyone could take AOSP and make it incompatible with Android (TM). If they could call it Android, that would mislead consumers. The problem is that if you ship a single Android phone with Play etc, you are not allowed to ship any phones based on AOSP. In fact, Google just made Acer cancel the launch of an AOSP phone aimed at the Chinese market because it is already shipping genuine Android (TM). This is not "fairly unrestricted" ;-)
- thedevil 11y agoOn the one hand, Google using it's app store advantage to strengthen search seems to me like it might be a monopoly abuse. On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less innovative than Google. Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.
- outside1234 11y agoThe problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run. Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them more installs, which makes them better. It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't start to creep in.
- thedevil 11y agoIn theory, I agree with you. Everything I know about economics and organizational behavior seems to agree with you. But it seems that's not how it's worked out in the past ten years, and probably not how it will work out in the next ten years. Google's incredible pace of innovation has not apparently been slowed by lack of powerful competition.
- sangnoir 11y ago> The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run The "short run" is typically the scope relevant to laws and regulations, for good or for bad.
- cscurmudgeon 11y ago> Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google. Monopolies are only good for the consumer in the short term and good for only the monopolist in the long term. The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil.
- jboydyhacker 11y agoI can see arguments around Google Search impacting multiple startups and businesses of all kinds. Startups, carriers or whoever. However, try making Google Maps your default map provider on Apple - or Chrome... Very hard to make a case it's practice in apps in general is an issue here.
- 7Z7 11y agoIf Android is the dominant OS (80%? of smartphones) do iOS apps have a significant impact on what Google's Apps are doing in general? *Though I guess the fact that the Google apps are not on 100% of Android installs affects that number again.
- jboydyhacker 11y agoThere are just two players in the market and the business practices of both should be used to determine what is common practice or anticompetitive. Google started just a few years ago way behind ios. It got the share because of improvements in services - maps, mail, browser, notificaitons, and it’s OS. Apple has had a far more closed system around it’s default apps. While Apple’s apps have gotten shitter, Google’s default apps have gotten better. I’d argue not the place to hit them. Focus the investigation on search- narrow the scope to that. They’ve got like 5 pending cases and it’s coming off as trying to stop US tech from “encroaching” on established EU businesses. As a guy whose had to raise money- I get the “Google” question in almost every pitch. So I get there is an issue around search- but fuck their apps are good. I wish Apple would be forced to swap them out like Google Allows.