10 ms·

EU wants Google to stop anti-competitive Android practices, fine expected

108 points by flinner 10y ago

im3s 10y ago
Personally, I think that users would just install Google themselves if it isn't pre-installed.
- ffggvv 10y ago
  It's not only google, but also chrome ("internet"), gmail, etc.
- tdkl 10y ago
  Would they install all the of the Gapps if most of the apps would: - be available on other app stores, - apps wouldn't require Google Play Services?
  - Monotoko 10y ago
    Here in China I can get most of my apps from other sources but require play services for some. It's annoying because if my VPN isn't on or it isn't working well one day the battery usage kills me.
  - zdkl 10y ago
    Yeah that's the one thing I hope will happen one day. Meaningful seperation between android and the google services
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    I was just trying to get rid of play music and play newsstand yesterday. Most of the stuff they include is wasted space. It's particularly frustrating since I'm always running out of internal storage and most apps are difficult to put on the SD card.
- Freestyler_3 10y ago
  The case is about google paying the manufacturers to put google services in there. Most manufacturers would still pre-load it, those who don't no longer have a cost disadvantage.
mtgx 10y ago
Has the EU even addressed the issue where Google bans all ad-blocking apps from its store? Seems like a pretty open and shut "we're doing this because we have near-monopoly on the smartphone market and ad-blocking hurts our business" anti-trust case.
- neximo64 10y ago
  In your view are Apple's app store promotions fair? They're the only one allowed to distribute apps.
- bobbyi_settv 10y ago
  I'm not seeing how that's anti-competitive. Doesn't stopping ad blockers help other advertisers and networks just as much as it helps Google?
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Do they? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplus.browser&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplu... I don't use Android (nor any Google product besides search) but I'm pretty sure you can get ad blockers on Android.
  - anonymousab 10y ago
    They block applications that interfere with the operation of other applications. This would include an ad blocker that blocks ads in, say, a free game, or the built in Chrome browser. The common workaround was to run connections through a VPN and your ad blocking happens there. I'm not sure if they started cracking down on that as well. Having apps that modify other apps can certainly be desired behavior, but it's clear why there would be legitimate concerns about customer security in allowing apps that can do so.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      So... why is it possible?
bgarbiak 10y ago
That's a good news. I wish there was an Android phone with, let's say, a Firefox set as a default browser, and a Google Play Store available. But, although I'm usually for EU in cases like this, I'm more and more disgruntled about how ineffective all that after-the-fact fines and penalties are. Maybe some more strict rules would be better? Like: any OS on sell in UE can not prohibit installing third party software and tinkering with the hardware, and the user should be asked about pre-installed software on the first launch. Something like that. We got browser choice screen in Windows for a while, and it was good. But it didn't affect iOS, nor Windows 10, nor Android.
- tacomonstrous 10y ago
  You can already set Firefox to be the default browser and disable Chrome on any Android device.
  - Sylos 10y ago
    He's saying preinstalled as the default browser. Not installed and set as default after the fact by the user. Let manufacturers freely decide what software they want to bundle.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      You could make an Android phone that had things like that, and companies have done so (like Amazon). The downside is then you wouldn't be able to license the Google services on top. Android is both open source and expensive to develop. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, especially as Google keeps the fragmentation problem somewhat under control this way.
      - stephenr 10y ago
        You call the current situation with android fragmentation "under control"? The single highest installed version according to Google is 3 major versions behind and 3 years old.
sschueller 10y ago
What about apple? Yes, they don't have the same market share but their product is completely closed and until recently all other browsers where crippled compared to the build in one. All apps must come from the Apple App Store. No 3rd party allowed.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  > Yes they don't have the same market share Problem solved it would seem. Even so, as you mentioned you can get other browsers.
  - kyrra 10y ago
    You can only get wrappers on WebKit and it's JavaScript engine. No gecko, no blink.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      but you can get other browsers, as I pointed out: http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iosapps/best-iphone-web-browser-apps-2016-3621607/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iosapps/best-iphone-web-br...
      - qassim 10y ago
        Those are all Safari underneath.
        rickhanlonii 10y ago
        An under that they're all iOS
        Drakim 10y ago
        No, they "aren't" iOS, iOS is the operating system that manages them. You clearly don't know how this tech work, and should avoid commenting as if you do.
elcct 10y ago
So much for the free market. All the EU socialists must have a hard on right now. In the end fine will be paid by the consumers anyway, and will have to click more to install Google apps and additionally pay for bandwidth. But hey, those lunatics will be happy they solved another "problem".
- coldtea 10y ago
  >So much for the free market. You seem confused. The free market is that where monopolies don't bully to limit choice (and thus freedom).
  - necessity 10y ago
    Who is Google bullying and how? >Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine on their browser? The only thing limiting choice and freedom is the EU decision.
    - M2Ys4U 10y ago
      Google has a dominant market position, Mozilla does not.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine on their browser? Firefox is not a monopoly, so that's a moot point.
      - elcct 10y ago
        Are you saying you cannot install software on Android other than from Google?
        coldtea 10y ago
        No, I'm saying Android controls the vast majority of the smartphone market.
venomsnake 10y ago
Leave google alone and break thr walls of apple's garden. They are worse.
edderly 10y ago
There's a dark or a bright side to this. On the one hand you wonder whether Google will get in a huff and close AOSP (The Android Open Source Project) just to work with a few commercial vendors. They can leave the complainants to work together on an fork where they can do what they wish. Or, which I hope they would do by now, actually run AOSP like a true open source project. In the latter case I think the strategy that they've used so far "was" the right one (open source but not open for debate), however Android is now mature enough that I think developing a true open source community would benefit it.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I don't get this. Sure Android has a greater market share, but people use it _because_ Google services come with it (and phones tend to be less expensive). They aren't (at least to my knowledge) doing anything underhanded to keep me from installing alternatives. I can completely replace all of the default apps. There is another major platform that doesn't allow for that. Why aren't they at least being given a warning? Edit: Disclosure, I use both major platforms.
- infocollector 10y ago
  I thought Apple was being fined by EU for a huge sum (just another reason).
  - notatoad 10y ago
    how is that relevant?
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    $14.5 billion tax bill, not exactly a fine. (Also, I want to write $14.5G like I would $14.5M or $14.5k, but I don't think it would be understood very well)
    - amelius 10y ago
      (Use $14.5B)
- melling 10y ago
  Did you read the article? "EU antitrust regulators plan to order Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search exclusively on their devices and warned the company of a large fine, an EU document showed."
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    Yes. I have not seen an Android device which I was unable to easily use, say, DuckDuckGo as my search engine. I guess this only happens in the EU.
Arnt 10y ago
Quite a few comments, none so far about the matter that's leading to the fine: Paying manufacturers to preinstall stuff.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I'm all for antitrust regulators being more active to spur competition, but this is an odd one. Microsoft certainly pays OEMs to configure Bing, Google & Yahoo have paid Mozilla to use their search engine. Yahoo pays for crapware to install their toolbar, often paying malware authors, and yet it's Android that gets them in a frenzy. Google clearly has platform power here, but targeting the payments is such an odd one to me. I can't believe phone manufacturers will be happy about this either since competing search engines probably won't pay them as much in light of this.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > Microsoft certainly pays OEMs to configure Bing Microsoft has little market share.
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    Google pays more to Apple to have their search as default than Yahoo pays Mozilla and Oracle. Btw, can you point towards Yahoo paying for crapware to be installed?
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      Sorry, no references off the top of my head, just seen it first hand when investigating pay per install networks in desktop crapware. Saw Ask & Yahoo toolbars getting installed by them, pretty sure that indicated a kickback, but I didn't care to dig.
  - makomk 10y ago
    It's a very odd one. It'd leave Microsoft and possibly Yahoo the only companies willing and able to pay phone companies to install their search, and Microsoft's historically been a lot more obnoxious about it, paying them to prevent users from switching to alternative search engines.
BurningFrog 10y ago
All these arbitrary fines handed out without trials looks a lot like taxation by fiat to this cynic.
- Freestyler_3 10y ago
  A fine is given and then the company can respond by going to court. It works like traffic law, you receive a fine and if you disagree then you can go to court.
eth0up 10y ago
I tried Cyanogenmod for a while and wasn't pleased with the situation of Android in general, notably the arrangements with Google Play. I used Fdroid for a bit (which I appreciated), but soon ended up abandoning Android altogether, for a bundle of reasons. Here's one of the most relevant perspectives on Google's Android I've read, titled Google's Iron Grip on Android: 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-...
- eth0up 10y ago
  I forgot to mention that I was really disappointed (even sad) to see the Jolla (with Sailfish OS) fail. I kind of gave up on "smart devices" after that. Sure would have been dandy had YC backed them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla
- necessity 10y ago
  Sidenote: You can have CM without Gapps. Or even Replicant with FDroid.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Sure, you can, but it's pretty crippled. Too many apps are unnecessarily dependent on Gapps, as well as some non-essential android functions.
- pitaj 10y ago
  So you just don't use a smartphone anymore? Or do you use an iPhone?
  - eth0up 10y ago
    I don't use a smartphone presently, but I also don't need one. I consider both options equally undesirable and will hold out until a worthy competitor arrives, or necessity imposes itself. I'm a bit curmudgeonly regarding technology that sits in my pocket, following me everywhere, handling my data, and prefer it be subordinate to me - not autonomous, closed and teeming with third-party interests.
Zigurd 10y ago
First, it would be nice if the currently closed parts of a the Google-logo Android most OEMs ship were more open. Google's IoT OS is developed in the open, while AOSP has periodic updates. Parts of Google's suite of services and apps that are currently for Google-logo OEMs could also be opened without weakening Google's position with OEMs. Secondly, it would be nice if there were more smartphone OS choices, like Jolla, that could prosper alongside the two main choices. But Google doesn't deserve to get fined for anti-competitive practices. Amazon's mobile OS drafts off of Google's work on AOSP, and nobody is whining about that. Yandex announced they would do something similar. Chinese OEMs have long had their own app stores on Android. In many ways Android is the basis for open competition in mobile OSs. If you want something other than the Google ecosystem, you can have it on an Android OS with all the latest OS technologies. But you have to have your own credible ecosystem and customer base for it. I'm not sure what the EU wants that hasn't already been demonstrated can be done in the US, Russia, and China.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Yandex is behind the Russian case against Google , because OEMs told Yandex that Google forbid them from working with Yandex. In Russia, Google's already been ordered to make the changes the EU is demanding here, though there's no signs Google has complied yet. China only has competition because Google doesn't operate there. Amazon's Fire Phone shows how successful one can compete with an international monopoly. None of these are good examples to defend Google, and in fact, demonstrate why it's so crucial Google be taken down a peg. Honestly, they don't deserve a fine, because they can afford it, and it's no big deal. Google needs to be forcibly broken up into smaller parts, and banned from colluding with each other. It's time to do to El Goog what the US did to Ma Bell.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    Regarding "because OEMs told Yandex that Google forbid them from working with Yandex" that appears to be true. Google forbids OEMs from selling both Google-logo and other-ecosystem devices. Google's excuse is "anti-fragmentation." They do this to make OEMs accept Google's decisions about Android, and either you are in or you are out. But that's not a high barrier. Amazon's tablets are made by some CM/ODM who most likely manufactures Android devices for a number of OEMs. Yandex could have private label phones much the same way. Or they could get phones from China OEMs that don't care about making Google-logo devices. The Amazon Fire phone was as much a turkey as Echo is a hit. It wasn't Google's fault. As for China, Google does operate there now, and Lenovo sells Google-logo Androids in China. But the non-Google ecosystems continue.
libeclipse 10y ago
I completely disagree with this. Google is too lax about what it allows and doesn't allow on Android. It could easily restrict 3rd party companies like AT&T and EE etc from pre-loading their bloatware as system apps, but it doesn't. Google's apps are, in my opinion, excellent, and it's their operating system. They should be able to put whatever they want on it, just like apple can put whatever they want on iPhones and Microsoft can put whatever they want on theirs.
dogma1138 10y ago
There are plenty of android devices that are sold in emerging markets that do not come with the Play store. Africa, China and India are doing it. Nothing prevents vendors from selling devices without the Play store, and some devices like Samsung ones come with their own App Store in addition to Google Play. Nokia also had a close store. Also you can side load apps on android devices without rooting them.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  So, take your phone without the Play Store, and get the apps that people in the US or the EU want. You'll find almost none of the apps users want are available without Google Play. And most of them won't even run without Play Services even if you sideload them. Basically, what Google did gradually over the last few years, is fork Android. The APIs developers are encouraged to build their apps on are all proprietary, to ensure that their apps are also tied to the Google ecosystem.

108 points by flinner 10y ago

im3s 10y ago

Personally, I think that users would just install Google themselves if it isn't pre-installed.

ffggvv 10y ago
It's not only google, but also chrome ("internet"), gmail, etc.
tdkl 10y ago
Would they install all the of the Gapps if most of the apps would: - be available on other app stores, - apps wouldn't require Google Play Services?
- Monotoko 10y ago
  Here in China I can get most of my apps from other sources but require play services for some. It's annoying because if my VPN isn't on or it isn't working well one day the battery usage kills me.
- zdkl 10y ago
  Yeah that's the one thing I hope will happen one day. Meaningful seperation between android and the google services
- CalRobert 10y ago
  I was just trying to get rid of play music and play newsstand yesterday. Most of the stuff they include is wasted space. It's particularly frustrating since I'm always running out of internal storage and most apps are difficult to put on the SD card.
Freestyler_3 10y ago
The case is about google paying the manufacturers to put google services in there. Most manufacturers would still pre-load it, those who don't no longer have a cost disadvantage.

mtgx 10y ago

Has the EU even addressed the issue where Google bans all ad-blocking apps from its store? Seems like a pretty open and shut "we're doing this because we have near-monopoly on the smartphone market and ad-blocking hurts our business" anti-trust case.

neximo64 10y ago
In your view are Apple's app store promotions fair? They're the only one allowed to distribute apps.
bobbyi_settv 10y ago
I'm not seeing how that's anti-competitive. Doesn't stopping ad blockers help other advertisers and networks just as much as it helps Google?
muninn_ 10y ago
Do they? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplus.browser&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplu... I don't use Android (nor any Google product besides search) but I'm pretty sure you can get ad blockers on Android.
- anonymousab 10y ago
  They block applications that interfere with the operation of other applications. This would include an ad blocker that blocks ads in, say, a free game, or the built in Chrome browser. The common workaround was to run connections through a VPN and your ad blocking happens there. I'm not sure if they started cracking down on that as well. Having apps that modify other apps can certainly be desired behavior, but it's clear why there would be legitimate concerns about customer security in allowing apps that can do so.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    So... why is it possible?

bgarbiak 10y ago

That's a good news. I wish there was an Android phone with, let's say, a Firefox set as a default browser, and a Google Play Store available. But, although I'm usually for EU in cases like this, I'm more and more disgruntled about how ineffective all that after-the-fact fines and penalties are. Maybe some more strict rules would be better? Like: any OS on sell in UE can not prohibit installing third party software and tinkering with the hardware, and the user should be asked about pre-installed software on the first launch. Something like that. We got browser choice screen in Windows for a while, and it was good. But it didn't affect iOS, nor Windows 10, nor Android.

tacomonstrous 10y ago
You can already set Firefox to be the default browser and disable Chrome on any Android device.
- Sylos 10y ago
  He's saying preinstalled as the default browser. Not installed and set as default after the fact by the user. Let manufacturers freely decide what software they want to bundle.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    You could make an Android phone that had things like that, and companies have done so (like Amazon). The downside is then you wouldn't be able to license the Google services on top. Android is both open source and expensive to develop. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, especially as Google keeps the fragmentation problem somewhat under control this way.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      You call the current situation with android fragmentation "under control"? The single highest installed version according to Google is 3 major versions behind and 3 years old.

sschueller 10y ago

What about apple? Yes, they don't have the same market share but their product is completely closed and until recently all other browsers where crippled compared to the build in one. All apps must come from the Apple App Store. No 3rd party allowed.

muninn_ 10y ago
> Yes they don't have the same market share Problem solved it would seem. Even so, as you mentioned you can get other browsers.
- kyrra 10y ago
  You can only get wrappers on WebKit and it's JavaScript engine. No gecko, no blink.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    but you can get other browsers, as I pointed out: http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iosapps/best-iphone-web-browser-apps-2016-3621607/ http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iosapps/best-iphone-web-br...
    - qassim 10y ago
      Those are all Safari underneath.
      - rickhanlonii 10y ago
        An under that they're all iOS
        Drakim 10y ago
        No, they "aren't" iOS, iOS is the operating system that manages them. You clearly don't know how this tech work, and should avoid commenting as if you do.

elcct 10y ago

So much for the free market. All the EU socialists must have a hard on right now. In the end fine will be paid by the consumers anyway, and will have to click more to install Google apps and additionally pay for bandwidth. But hey, those lunatics will be happy they solved another "problem".

coldtea 10y ago
>So much for the free market. You seem confused. The free market is that where monopolies don't bully to limit choice (and thus freedom).
- necessity 10y ago
  Who is Google bullying and how? >Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine on their browser? The only thing limiting choice and freedom is the EU decision.
  - M2Ys4U 10y ago
    Google has a dominant market position, Mozilla does not.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine on their browser? Firefox is not a monopoly, so that's a moot point.
    - elcct 10y ago
      Are you saying you cannot install software on Android other than from Google?
      - coldtea 10y ago
        No, I'm saying Android controls the vast majority of the smartphone market.

venomsnake 10y ago

Leave google alone and break thr walls of apple's garden. They are worse.

edderly 10y ago

There's a dark or a bright side to this. On the one hand you wonder whether Google will get in a huff and close AOSP (The Android Open Source Project) just to work with a few commercial vendors. They can leave the complainants to work together on an fork where they can do what they wish. Or, which I hope they would do by now, actually run AOSP like a true open source project. In the latter case I think the strategy that they've used so far "was" the right one (open source but not open for debate), however Android is now mature enough that I think developing a true open source community would benefit it.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

I don't get this. Sure Android has a greater market share, but people use it _because_ Google services come with it (and phones tend to be less expensive). They aren't (at least to my knowledge) doing anything underhanded to keep me from installing alternatives. I can completely replace all of the default apps. There is another major platform that doesn't allow for that. Why aren't they at least being given a warning? Edit: Disclosure, I use both major platforms.

infocollector 10y ago
I thought Apple was being fined by EU for a huge sum (just another reason).
- notatoad 10y ago
  how is that relevant?
- colechristensen 10y ago
  $14.5 billion tax bill, not exactly a fine. (Also, I want to write $14.5G like I would $14.5M or $14.5k, but I don't think it would be understood very well)
  - amelius 10y ago
    (Use $14.5B)
melling 10y ago
Did you read the article? "EU antitrust regulators plan to order Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search exclusively on their devices and warned the company of a large fine, an EU document showed."
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Yes. I have not seen an Android device which I was unable to easily use, say, DuckDuckGo as my search engine. I guess this only happens in the EU.

Arnt 10y ago

Quite a few comments, none so far about the matter that's leading to the fine: Paying manufacturers to preinstall stuff.

Eridrus 10y ago
I'm all for antitrust regulators being more active to spur competition, but this is an odd one. Microsoft certainly pays OEMs to configure Bing, Google & Yahoo have paid Mozilla to use their search engine. Yahoo pays for crapware to install their toolbar, often paying malware authors, and yet it's Android that gets them in a frenzy. Google clearly has platform power here, but targeting the payments is such an odd one to me. I can't believe phone manufacturers will be happy about this either since competing search engines probably won't pay them as much in light of this.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  > Microsoft certainly pays OEMs to configure Bing Microsoft has little market share.
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  Google pays more to Apple to have their search as default than Yahoo pays Mozilla and Oracle. Btw, can you point towards Yahoo paying for crapware to be installed?
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    Sorry, no references off the top of my head, just seen it first hand when investigating pay per install networks in desktop crapware. Saw Ask & Yahoo toolbars getting installed by them, pretty sure that indicated a kickback, but I didn't care to dig.
- makomk 10y ago
  It's a very odd one. It'd leave Microsoft and possibly Yahoo the only companies willing and able to pay phone companies to install their search, and Microsoft's historically been a lot more obnoxious about it, paying them to prevent users from switching to alternative search engines.

BurningFrog 10y ago

All these arbitrary fines handed out without trials looks a lot like taxation by fiat to this cynic.

Freestyler_3 10y ago
A fine is given and then the company can respond by going to court. It works like traffic law, you receive a fine and if you disagree then you can go to court.

eth0up 10y ago

I tried Cyanogenmod for a while and wasn't pleased with the situation of Android in general, notably the arrangements with Google Play. I used Fdroid for a bit (which I appreciated), but soon ended up abandoning Android altogether, for a bundle of reasons. Here's one of the most relevant perspectives on Google's Android I've read, titled Google's Iron Grip on Android: 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-...

eth0up 10y ago
I forgot to mention that I was really disappointed (even sad) to see the Jolla (with Sailfish OS) fail. I kind of gave up on "smart devices" after that. Sure would have been dandy had YC backed them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla
necessity 10y ago
Sidenote: You can have CM without Gapps. Or even Replicant with FDroid.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Sure, you can, but it's pretty crippled. Too many apps are unnecessarily dependent on Gapps, as well as some non-essential android functions.
pitaj 10y ago
So you just don't use a smartphone anymore? Or do you use an iPhone?
- eth0up 10y ago
  I don't use a smartphone presently, but I also don't need one. I consider both options equally undesirable and will hold out until a worthy competitor arrives, or necessity imposes itself. I'm a bit curmudgeonly regarding technology that sits in my pocket, following me everywhere, handling my data, and prefer it be subordinate to me - not autonomous, closed and teeming with third-party interests.

Zigurd 10y ago

First, it would be nice if the currently closed parts of a the Google-logo Android most OEMs ship were more open. Google's IoT OS is developed in the open, while AOSP has periodic updates. Parts of Google's suite of services and apps that are currently for Google-logo OEMs could also be opened without weakening Google's position with OEMs. Secondly, it would be nice if there were more smartphone OS choices, like Jolla, that could prosper alongside the two main choices. But Google doesn't deserve to get fined for anti-competitive practices. Amazon's mobile OS drafts off of Google's work on AOSP, and nobody is whining about that. Yandex announced they would do something similar. Chinese OEMs have long had their own app stores on Android. In many ways Android is the basis for open competition in mobile OSs. If you want something other than the Google ecosystem, you can have it on an Android OS with all the latest OS technologies. But you have to have your own credible ecosystem and customer base for it. I'm not sure what the EU wants that hasn't already been demonstrated can be done in the US, Russia, and China.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Yandex is behind the Russian case against Google , because OEMs told Yandex that Google forbid them from working with Yandex. In Russia, Google's already been ordered to make the changes the EU is demanding here, though there's no signs Google has complied yet. China only has competition because Google doesn't operate there. Amazon's Fire Phone shows how successful one can compete with an international monopoly. None of these are good examples to defend Google, and in fact, demonstrate why it's so crucial Google be taken down a peg. Honestly, they don't deserve a fine, because they can afford it, and it's no big deal. Google needs to be forcibly broken up into smaller parts, and banned from colluding with each other. It's time to do to El Goog what the US did to Ma Bell.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  Regarding "because OEMs told Yandex that Google forbid them from working with Yandex" that appears to be true. Google forbids OEMs from selling both Google-logo and other-ecosystem devices. Google's excuse is "anti-fragmentation." They do this to make OEMs accept Google's decisions about Android, and either you are in or you are out. But that's not a high barrier. Amazon's tablets are made by some CM/ODM who most likely manufactures Android devices for a number of OEMs. Yandex could have private label phones much the same way. Or they could get phones from China OEMs that don't care about making Google-logo devices. The Amazon Fire phone was as much a turkey as Echo is a hit. It wasn't Google's fault. As for China, Google does operate there now, and Lenovo sells Google-logo Androids in China. But the non-Google ecosystems continue.

libeclipse 10y ago

I completely disagree with this. Google is too lax about what it allows and doesn't allow on Android. It could easily restrict 3rd party companies like AT&T and EE etc from pre-loading their bloatware as system apps, but it doesn't. Google's apps are, in my opinion, excellent, and it's their operating system. They should be able to put whatever they want on it, just like apple can put whatever they want on iPhones and Microsoft can put whatever they want on theirs.

dogma1138 10y ago

There are plenty of android devices that are sold in emerging markets that do not come with the Play store. Africa, China and India are doing it. Nothing prevents vendors from selling devices without the Play store, and some devices like Samsung ones come with their own App Store in addition to Google Play. Nokia also had a close store. Also you can side load apps on android devices without rooting them.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
So, take your phone without the Play Store, and get the apps that people in the US or the EU want. You'll find almost none of the apps users want are available without Google Play. And most of them won't even run without Play Services even if you sideload them. Basically, what Google did gradually over the last few years, is fork Android. The APIs developers are encouraged to build their apps on are all proprietary, to ensure that their apps are also tied to the Google ecosystem.