4 ms·

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The key po

by kyrra 11y ago

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The key points: > requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; > preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code; > giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

Bjartr 11y ago
It's the second and third points that I take issue (with Google) on. The first seems a reasonable way to try to ensure that if manufacturers want to benefit from the ecosystem Google has built they have to provide users with the experience Google intended. Less than that can reflect poorly on Google if the manufacturer provided ecosystem integration is lackluster or even intentionally restricted. The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.
- zmmmmm 11y ago
  I don't really have a problem with Google giving incentives for exclusivity of Google Search on devices. As long as that's voluntary for carriers / OEMs to enter into and other search alternatives have the same opportunity then that's just business. In a way I would see it as more of a problem if Google was requiring it without giving incentives. That would be evidence of an abuse of market power. Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.
patrickaljord 11y ago
> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    The open source community is terrible at UX, Android is the first usable mobile OS based on linux with a good UX and I'm typing this from my Ubuntu laptop. Second, Android is already available as open source and there are a few open source distro, they are not thriving. Finally, we're all greedy so let's not be judgmental here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
  - wstrange 11y ago
    I think you are underestimating the amount of work that goes into producing a high quality mobile O/S. Someone has to fund that effort.
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      And various interests building products based on Android will fund it or directly contribute. Note: Development on Linux happens.
      - victorhooi 11y ago
        Yes, and it's totally the year of the Linux desktop....not. Look, I love Linux as much as the next guy - and I plodded along with Slackware, then Ubuntu, then Arch as my main machine for many years. Heck, I even used Gentoo as my main box for a while. But let's be completely honest - Linux on the desktop compared to say OSX, or Windows, or even ChromeOS - doesn't even hold a candle, in terms of cohesive UX design, user experience, general polish etc. So whilst the OSS community seems great at some things, UX design and the user experience for the non-technical user hasn't been one of them.
NiKMic 11y ago
Thanks for that! As others mentioned, I'm fine with the first point but the other two I'm not too keen on.

by kyrra 11y ago

Bjartr 11y ago

It's the second and third points that I take issue (with Google) on. The first seems a reasonable way to try to ensure that if manufacturers want to benefit from the ecosystem Google has built they have to provide users with the experience Google intended. Less than that can reflect poorly on Google if the manufacturer provided ecosystem integration is lackluster or even intentionally restricted. The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.

zmmmmm 11y ago
I don't really have a problem with Google giving incentives for exclusivity of Google Search on devices. As long as that's voluntary for carriers / OEMs to enter into and other search alternatives have the same opportunity then that's just business. In a way I would see it as more of a problem if Google was requiring it without giving incentives. That would be evidence of an abuse of market power. Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.

patrickaljord 11y ago

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  The open source community is terrible at UX, Android is the first usable mobile OS based on linux with a good UX and I'm typing this from my Ubuntu laptop. Second, Android is already available as open source and there are a few open source distro, they are not thriving. Finally, we're all greedy so let's not be judgmental here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
- wstrange 11y ago
  I think you are underestimating the amount of work that goes into producing a high quality mobile O/S. Someone has to fund that effort.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    And various interests building products based on Android will fund it or directly contribute. Note: Development on Linux happens.
    - victorhooi 11y ago
      Yes, and it's totally the year of the Linux desktop....not. Look, I love Linux as much as the next guy - and I plodded along with Slackware, then Ubuntu, then Arch as my main machine for many years. Heck, I even used Gentoo as my main box for a while. But let's be completely honest - Linux on the desktop compared to say OSX, or Windows, or even ChromeOS - doesn't even hold a candle, in terms of cohesive UX design, user experience, general polish etc. So whilst the OSS community seems great at some things, UX design and the user experience for the non-technical user hasn't been one of them.

NiKMic 11y ago

Thanks for that! As others mentioned, I'm fine with the first point but the other two I'm not too keen on.