5 ms·

Google loses appeal against Russia’s Android antitrust ruling

7 points by rch 10y ago

oconnor663 10y ago
Would this case never have come up if Android wasn't open source? It sounds like it might be incentivizing the wrong things.
- meira 10y ago
  Android would not be Android if it wasn't open source, too.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    The parts of android that are open source aren't the parts most people would associate with "android". It's like saying OSX is open source because Darwin is BSD licensed.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Almost certainly, yes. Internet Explorer wasn't open source and neither was Windows. The problem is not open source vs. closed. The issue is how Google interacts with it's manufacturers. The biggest problem with Microsoft's behavior in the 90s was the way they exerted control over other companies. And that is the same problem today with Google. Few people realize it because Google keeps their agreements with manufacturers strictly secret.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    I suspect the manufacturers who want to use Android but don't want to use Google Maps aren't doing it because they hate Google Maps, they're doing it because they don't want to pay any licensing fees at all. They want to use Android because it's free, and rather than playing ball with Google they want to swap out all of the services with free or cheap local alternatives. The companies who are willing to pay something have no problem with Google because the fee structure is on par with whatever relationship they had with Microsoft/Symbian before, or maybe cheaper because Google is monetizing with ads. If Android was 100% proprietary, these bargain manufacturers probably wouldn't be looking at it in the first place. They would be using Ubuntu Phone or Nokia Linux or whatever the open source phone OS would've been if Google hadn't grabbed the brass ring. That's the theory anyway. I your OP poses a very interesting question, and perhaps a cautionary tale for open source companies. Still, many open source companies do just fine selling services without strong-arming people into buying them.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      AFAIK, Google doesn't charge OEMs for Google Apps licensing. Apps generally pay OEMs to be preloaded, not the other way around. The primary issue is that Google gets it's apps preloaded for free, whereas OEMs could get other companies to pay to have their apps preloaded. Or, in situations where the OEM has their own apps, they'd rather just offer those. (See Samsung for an example of that.) In this specific example, Yandex would almost certainly pay Russian OEMs to preinstall Yandex and set it as default. (Note, Google has paid Apple and Mozilla princely sums to be their default search in the past.) However, OEMs currently can't do that, because Google is mandating in order to get the Play Store, which they need, they must install and set Google Search as default. Hence, Google is abusing their monopoly on the app store to guarantee they don't have to compete for price on search preinstallation, which is illegal. If Google's agreements with OEMs are removed, Google may still be the default search on devices, but Google will have to pay for the privilege because they'll have to outbid their competitors.
niftich 10y ago
I'm not a state or regulatory body, but it's obvious to me that Google in fact bundles their services along with their OS and makes alternative apps or services (like, say, the Google Play Store vs alternate app stores) awkward in some cases. One can argue that realities of the implementation like trust, bootstrapping, having a minimum viable product, key exchange, etc. make it difficult to do it any other way, and in most cases, that argument is fair. But Microsoft famously got hit about both IE and Windows Media Player, so intuitively I feel either they're both in the right, or both in the wrong. What's remarkable to me is how Apple has been able to escape such suits to date, as they're far more vertically integrated. Regardless of the jurisdiction and their particular propensity for monopoly-busting or protectionism, cases like this leave me the cynicism that as it's not really the behavior that's being regulated, but rather individual targets are in the crosshairs.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The key reason Apple is basically never affected by this, is Apple is putting Apple software on Apple hardware. The tying issue that comes into play for both Microsoft and Google revolves around the arrangement between the software developer and the hardware manufacturer. Since Apple is both, this is a non-issue. But when Google is forcing Samsung to do things or Microsoft is forcing Dell to do things, it's a different ballgame.
  - paulryanrogers 10y ago
    Yet if Apple becomes a significant majority in a given market then I imagine anti trust would be a concern
  - on_and_off 10y ago
    >Since Apple is both, this is a non-issue. I would argue that it is kind of an issue for consumers and third party developers when you can't install/publish apps without Apple's approval. If you consider that an iDevice is like a game console, this is fine, if you consider it like a generic computer, this is a big limitation.

7 points by rch 10y ago

Would this case never have come up if Android wasn't open source? It sounds like it might be incentivizing the wrong things.

meira 10y ago
Android would not be Android if it wasn't open source, too.
- stephenr 10y ago
  The parts of android that are open source aren't the parts most people would associate with "android". It's like saying OSX is open source because Darwin is BSD licensed.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Almost certainly, yes. Internet Explorer wasn't open source and neither was Windows. The problem is not open source vs. closed. The issue is how Google interacts with it's manufacturers. The biggest problem with Microsoft's behavior in the 90s was the way they exerted control over other companies. And that is the same problem today with Google. Few people realize it because Google keeps their agreements with manufacturers strictly secret.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  I suspect the manufacturers who want to use Android but don't want to use Google Maps aren't doing it because they hate Google Maps, they're doing it because they don't want to pay any licensing fees at all. They want to use Android because it's free, and rather than playing ball with Google they want to swap out all of the services with free or cheap local alternatives. The companies who are willing to pay something have no problem with Google because the fee structure is on par with whatever relationship they had with Microsoft/Symbian before, or maybe cheaper because Google is monetizing with ads. If Android was 100% proprietary, these bargain manufacturers probably wouldn't be looking at it in the first place. They would be using Ubuntu Phone or Nokia Linux or whatever the open source phone OS would've been if Google hadn't grabbed the brass ring. That's the theory anyway. I your OP poses a very interesting question, and perhaps a cautionary tale for open source companies. Still, many open source companies do just fine selling services without strong-arming people into buying them.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    AFAIK, Google doesn't charge OEMs for Google Apps licensing. Apps generally pay OEMs to be preloaded, not the other way around. The primary issue is that Google gets it's apps preloaded for free, whereas OEMs could get other companies to pay to have their apps preloaded. Or, in situations where the OEM has their own apps, they'd rather just offer those. (See Samsung for an example of that.) In this specific example, Yandex would almost certainly pay Russian OEMs to preinstall Yandex and set it as default. (Note, Google has paid Apple and Mozilla princely sums to be their default search in the past.) However, OEMs currently can't do that, because Google is mandating in order to get the Play Store, which they need, they must install and set Google Search as default. Hence, Google is abusing their monopoly on the app store to guarantee they don't have to compete for price on search preinstallation, which is illegal. If Google's agreements with OEMs are removed, Google may still be the default search on devices, but Google will have to pay for the privilege because they'll have to outbid their competitors.

niftich 10y ago

I'm not a state or regulatory body, but it's obvious to me that Google in fact bundles their services along with their OS and makes alternative apps or services (like, say, the Google Play Store vs alternate app stores) awkward in some cases. One can argue that realities of the implementation like trust, bootstrapping, having a minimum viable product, key exchange, etc. make it difficult to do it any other way, and in most cases, that argument is fair. But Microsoft famously got hit about both IE and Windows Media Player, so intuitively I feel either they're both in the right, or both in the wrong. What's remarkable to me is how Apple has been able to escape such suits to date, as they're far more vertically integrated. Regardless of the jurisdiction and their particular propensity for monopoly-busting or protectionism, cases like this leave me the cynicism that as it's not really the behavior that's being regulated, but rather individual targets are in the crosshairs.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The key reason Apple is basically never affected by this, is Apple is putting Apple software on Apple hardware. The tying issue that comes into play for both Microsoft and Google revolves around the arrangement between the software developer and the hardware manufacturer. Since Apple is both, this is a non-issue. But when Google is forcing Samsung to do things or Microsoft is forcing Dell to do things, it's a different ballgame.
- paulryanrogers 10y ago
  Yet if Apple becomes a significant majority in a given market then I imagine anti trust would be a concern
- on_and_off 10y ago
  >Since Apple is both, this is a non-issue. I would argue that it is kind of an issue for consumers and third party developers when you can't install/publish apps without Apple's approval. If you consider that an iDevice is like a game console, this is fine, if you consider it like a generic computer, this is a big limitation.