24 ms·

Google warns Android might not remain free because of EU decision

180 points by sahin-boydas 8y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
All the better. If it's not free, some non-spying alternatives may finally appear/gain wider adoption.
- gepi79 8y ago
  I do not understand why you have been down voted. Free commercial software and hardware is the strongest competition to open source software and hardware. If Google charged money then a more open source oriented competitor would have more chances to compete.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  Just curious: why don't you consider Apple as a "non-spying" alternative? Or are you just saying that there's room for yet another option?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    I didn't mean Apple, rather other attempts that all failed so far, such as Maemo/Moblin/Tizen etc. On the other hand, even though Apple definitely is tracking users to some extent and has a large database of users, including their real names, addresses and other personal data, they don't have the technical means to build such a complex profile of each person as Google. Based just on your search and visit history Google knows more about us, our fears and secrets more than our partners. So it's in our best interests not to strengthen their position further.
ForHackernews 8y ago
Android is already nonfree, in that it includes loads of proprietary bits. If Google starts trying to charge phone makers big bucks, that's just more incentive for Samsung to fork AOSP themselves. Google doesn't want to see a fractured ecosystem they can't control, so I agree with the article that it's an empty bluff.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- simion314 8y ago
  Google is working on a new Android kernel so they were planning in a long while to take full control and probably go closed source with newer Android versions.
  - ge0rg 8y ago
    I don't think that replacing Linux under the hood of Android will change anything. Most of Android is licensed under the Apache license, probably due to the alternative Java runtime they took initially from the Apache Foundation. They sheer developer power Google has at hand to throw at Android development, including out-of-tree-kernel patchsets, means that it is a very significant effort to just keep pace with them, and the AOSP "code drops" come late and require major integration work. If they wanted to switch to a closed-source model, they could have adopted that for the runtime a long time ago, still keeping the closed-source blob on top of the Linux kernel. Maybe the EU decision will change the benefit balance of Android "being open source", and Google will go on with forking off / replacing the whole middleware, but I think that with their speed of Android development most commercially viable OEMs only have a chance to follow by subscribing to Google contracts (and maybe getting early access to new releases) anyway.
    - simion314 8y ago
      If Google has the copyright of the code their own developers wrote then they can relicense any code they wrote, including GPL. Edit Also they will probably try to replace Java with Dart to get around the Java/Oracle problem
      - ge0rg 8y ago
        They do have the copyright to the code they wrote, but not to the code they took and changed (Apache Harmony, Linux kernel). They can relicense everything that originated from them, and provide it under a pure commercial license or dual-license it. However, it might mean that they have to re-implement big parts of the Android runtime, or even do clean-room implementations by people not previously involved in those projects, to prevent legal attacks on the inevitably-similar code that results.
dontnotice 8y ago
"Given Google’s dominance in search and browsers and the popularity of its many web services, Pichai’s warning looks more like a bluff to court popular opinion than a genuine threat that Android will no longer be free." I wish these bloggers would keep their biases and unsubstantiated commentary to themselves. This fine is an assault on open source, the fact linux didn't attain mainstream appeal on the desktop was largely due to the lack of condition and harmonization across distros. In any other context fining an open source project for antitrust violations is absurd.
- krzyk 8y ago
  Why it is assault on open source? The problem is that Google bundles it's Chrome and search apps (which are not open source) together with android that is later installed on devices made my others. At least that what I see in the article.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  Google is a multibillion dollar advertising company, not an "open source project". They're not fining ASOP, and Android is a nonfree OS.
  - dontnotice 8y ago
    Are you suggestion that AOSP has nothing to do with Android!? And if we were to take the existence of AOSP into consideration then this fine seems even more ridicules and unwarranted.
    - simion314 8y ago
      Why existence of some source code or forks cancels the abuse?
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > This fine is an assault on open source I don't see how telling Google not to force itself as the default preinstalled option on phones is an "assault on open source". > the fact the linux didn't attaint mainstream appeal on the desktop was largely due to the lack of condition and harmonization across distros Not sure what "condition and harmonization is", but if you mean the poor UI for normal people, then yes. I don't see the relevance of this to Google forcing itself onto people's phones. > and the EU wants to doom android to the same fate. It was literally a few days ago when I was wondering to myself how people were cool with Google search etc. coming preinstalled. I had no idea the EU was looking into this. As a result I don't have any reason to believe their goal is anything but fair competition.
mc32 8y ago
I know it’s not going to happen, but part of me wishes this would allow Windows Phone to be viable. It was such a great mobile OS for basic and not so basic functions. Unfortunately MS had no strategy and no independent serious developers spent their limited resources on it and it withered.
- yread 8y ago
  Yes, this ruling should've come 5 years earlier
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Except that MS of all companies kept burning compatibility bridges. For all its warts, Android can still run apps that have not been updated in years (how smart it is to do so is a whole different debate). One would have thought MS would understand what an advantage this gives, as they have been doing the same on desktop for decades. But on mobile they keep screwing it up.
- timrichard 8y ago
  I had to support a variety of devices for family and (mostly) friends, and I thought it was a terrible OS. (Disclaimer : I use iOS and Android equally, so not cheerleading for either)
- toast0 8y ago
  MS had worse than no strategy, they abandoned their strategy that was working. WP 8 was reasonably decent, and sold a lot of phones at the low-end ($50 for a Lumia 521 or later a 640 would get you a phone that basically worked, with a limited app catalog; vs a $50 Android that probably had low storage warnings on first boot). Then for WM 10, they had fired their QA team and re-orged away the phone team, and they delivered a stunningly poor OS release, but there were no cheap phones for it anyway -- the Lumia 650 was essentially spec equivalent to the 640, and they wanted app developers to start building 'universal' apps that would only work on Windows mobile 10, which I think still has fewer users than WP 8.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms Sorry, Sundar, but this signal was sent by you. Android users receive it in multiple ways when our phones nag us to turn on tracking options and your company builds a complex profile about all aspects of our lives. Yes, a proprietary non-tracking alternative starts to look more attractive.
bencollier49 8y ago
This is reminiscent of banks in the UK, who come out with direful warnings that they'll end free banking every time they're forced to lower their swingeing overdraft fees.
cobookman 8y ago
Why isn't Apple also being Fined?
- simion314 8y ago
  Because they do not have a monopoly in market A and abuse that to get an advantage on market B, where in this case A is mobile market from low to high end and B is search/user tracking/analytics/advertising
  - klez 8y ago
    Nitpick: dominant position, not really a monopoly. But the rest of your point stands.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      But a controlling position is. The earlier terrm engrossment makes this concept clearer: To acquire most or all of (a commodity); monopolize (a market). https://www.thefreedictionary.com/engrossment https://www.thefreedictionary.com/engrossment The meaning is much the same as an engrossing thought or conversation: one that fully occupies your attention. It is as engrossment rather than monopoly that Adam Smith discusses exclusive control. Of trade with a region: The moderate capital of the [Hudson Bay] company, which, it is said, does not exceed one hundred and ten thousand pounds, may besides be sufficient to enable them to engross the whole, or almost the whole, trade and surplus produce of the miserable, though extensive country, comprehended within their charter. No private adventurers, accordingly, have ever attempted to trade to that country in competition with them. This company, therefore, have always enjoyed an exclusive trade in fact, though they may have no right to it in law.... Of skilled labour: Half a dozen wool-combers, perhaps, are necessary to keep a thousand spinners and weavers at work. By combining not to take apprentices they can not only engross the employment, but reduce the whole manufacture into a sort of slavery to themselves.... Of grain: [I]t is scarce possible, even by the violence of law, to establish such an extensive monopoly with regard to corn; and, wherever the law leaves the trade free, it is of all commodities the least liable to be engrossed or monopolized by the force of a few large capitals, which buy up the greater part of it. Not only its value far exceeds what the capitals of a few private men are capable of purchasing, but, supposing they were capable of purchasing it, the manner in which it is produced renders this purchase practicable.... Of land: Great tracts of uncultivated land were, in this manner, not only engrossed by particular families, but the possibility of their being divided again was as much as possible precluded for ever. It seldom happens, however, that a great proprietor is a great improver. In the disorderly times which gave birth to those barbarous institutions, the great proprietor was sufficiently employed in defending his own territories, or in extending his jurisdiction and authority over those of his neighbours. He had no leisure to attend to the cultivation and improvement of land.... And more. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Engross&prefix=The+Wealth+of+Nations&fulltext=Search+The+Wealth+of+Nations&fulltext=Search&searchToken=5xi3uawcgtzkzuekdccfndxe5 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Engro...
simion314 8y ago
Windows was not free and it did not help with the IE bundle case.
sourcesmith 8y ago
"Pichai highlights the fact a typical Android user will “install around 50 apps themselves” and can easily remove preinstalled apps." You cannot remove the pre-installed apps, in my experience, only the subsequent updates to those apps.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Yeah, I'd say this is wrong. His direct quote is [1]: > Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. If you prefer other apps—or browsers, or search engines—to the preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps instead, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers. "Easily disable or delete"? Not to mention the lack of deletion on a lot of these (...any? I don't recall if I've seen any with deletion), I don't always even find a hard way to disable or delete preinstalled apps on phones... unless we're talking about booting custom bootloaders and wiping your phone etc. [1] https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
  - kevindqc 8y ago
    Don't you just need to long press the app icon and choose disable/delete?
    - enriquto 8y ago
      yes, but you cannot delete the google apps such as chrome or gmail (the option is not "enabled")
      - digi_owl 8y ago
        Thankfully those are most often bundled as stubs that take barely any space. roll back the updates and then disable. Did that to Chrome for the longest time as i was using Firefox on my Android device (before Mozilla went nuts. Now i am flipflopping between Opera and Brave, while waiting for Vivaldi to get a mobile version).
bmcusick 8y ago
That's basically what the EU is demanding. The EU has handed down what is an anti-tying decision. "You can't tie Android to Google Search, because that prevents competition in Search." Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee. (It could also possibly fund itself from search revenue (like Firefox) and App Store fees, although the second one could be broken up by the EU too on anti-tying grounds) It's no different from when Windows was prevented from tying Windows to Internet Explorer. It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.), but it also forced browsers to find independent business models.
- AnssiH 8y ago
  Yeah, I don't personally see a problem with this. Having OEMs pay a licensing fee to Google seems better than having Google stiffle competition by bundling Google Play and Search and requiring OEMs to not ship alternative non-Google AOSP products.
- ge0rg 8y ago
  Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee. A licensing fee would be a valid and reasonable outcome. It probably can even work without making Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL). The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly. but it also forced browsers to find independent business models It stopped Microsoft from preventing independent business models for browsers; it was just too late already for the commercial browser vendors of the time. And the current EU ruling will hopefully allow other mobile OS developers (or startups) to compete on more equal grounds. Of course we still have the network effect of Google Play, featuring a market dominance over Android apps and Android users. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another future EU ruling requiring Google to unbundle Google Play from all but technical requirements, possibly allowing users to legally get access to Google Play on AOSP-based devices, or using alternative clients.
enriquto 8y ago
They are downright lying. The animation on Pichai's talk tries to present removing the google chrome icon from the main screen as "uninstalling" it. Do they really think people are idiots?
- pentae 8y ago
  Yes. And sadly, most people are idiots.
coinerone 8y ago
I would love to Buy an Operating system for my Smartphone if it is well supported and maintained. Like buying OSX or Windows or a commercial Linux Version. Also i would like to see a third Player on the Market.
- criddell 8y ago
  > i would like to see a third Player on the Market Tizen? Windows Phone?
  - skykooler 8y ago
    Sailfish OS?
    - coinerone 8y ago
      Yes. But one that can successfully compete in terms of "get popular apps for my Smartphone".
sjwright 8y ago
In what sense is Android "free" right now? Android—by which I mean the Android a consumer would recognise and expect—hasn't been "free" in any sense of the word for quite some time.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Possibly never. I recall some tech bloggers voicing puzzlement when early Android tablets didn't ship with Marketplace installed. Thing is that at the time Google insisted that all Android devices had to be fitted with a mobile network radio. End result was that they basically handed Apple the first runner advantage in the tablet market.
ikeboy 8y ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/oracle-lawyer-says-googles-android-generated-31-billion-revenue-idUSKCN0UZ2W9 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/orac...
jmarinez 8y ago
The way Google's response is written is perhaps a sample of Pichai's application for White House Correspondent in the Trump administration. The argument is so ill worded its mindbugling. When did "open platforms" become synonymous with bundling? What the EU has done is call the bs in Google's speak. @Pichai - if you and all your high concentration of PhDs can't come up with a better business model than tracking and mind-controlling people, then yes, charge. Charge what you think Android is worth. We will evaluate the offering against our liberty. Well done EU!!
chappi42 8y ago
What a nice PR reply Pichal is delivering here. There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles, but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice. I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice. What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every cent of the fine!
- hydandata 8y ago
  Also: - Just like on WP, you cannot set some things to open in other browsers. - No extension support, because they know perfectly well what many people would install first, an add blocker.
  - Infinitesimus 8y ago
    To be fair, you can install FF, disable chrome and everything should work since WebView is now unbundled
    - beenBoutIT 8y ago
      You can install Chromium for Android and get everything except Flash working.
- kajecounterhack 8y ago
  > There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? > The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
mehrdadn 8y ago
Did this story get demoted somehow? How/why, and why silently so? I thought I saw it on the front page but now it's on page 4, when it currently has 35 points in 1 hour, and there's nothing comparable on that page (everything else is much older or lower voted).
- devmunchies 8y ago
  looks like it to me. i had read this earlier and came back to read comments and i had to go several pages in. why would YC want to sensor this?
- sctb 8y ago
  The discussion tripped the flamewar detector, which we've just turned off.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Oh haha wow, okay thanks!
drc0 8y ago
and yet I still cannot uninstall facebook from samsung phones.
- gmiller123456 8y ago
  What phone are you using? I've had a Galaxy S3, S5, and now S7. I can (and have) uninstalled Facebook on all of them. None of them came with it installed?
- vetinari 8y ago
  We all have different problems. I cannot install Facebook or Messenger on a Sony phone. due to a permission, that used to be defined by Sony in pre-Android 7 and now is defined by Facebook, i.e. by app with different signature. The old permission definition still lingers on the phone and the only way to get rid of it is to reset the phone to factory settings. Which I'm obviously not going to do.
undef_in 8y ago
Considering there software update model for Nexus/Pixel devices People will likely jump to iBoat.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrianhel 8y ago
Antitrust? To make money by giving away software that contains your free, but monetized software? Vendors are still able to bundle other browsers. What's next? Me no likey.
- Radle 8y ago
  Vendors are not capable of bundling other search engines, when they preinstall the google playstore.
  - adrianhel 8y ago
    Play Store makes the Android gears grind. Go with Ubuntu then. I do really want an OSS mobile OS. Android is close enough though.
bad_user 8y ago
Despicable how Google can lie in a press release. I’ve owned 5 Android phones thus far from LG, Motorola and Samsung and the preinstalled apps could not be uninstalled on either of them.
- vetinari 8y ago
  "or disable" I've owned multitude devices since original G1 till today, and every single of them allowed to disable Google apps. In fact, I have disabled most of them.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    Not good enough. If they cannot be uninstalled it means they are part of the base operationg system, which means that: 1. They represent a constant security risk, since the disabled version does not get updated 2. Other apps can rely on Google’s components; they actually warn that by disabling them you can run into misbehavior of other apps Also, last I tried you can’t disable Google Play Services, which is actually the most important piece.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      It is good enough. They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is read-only. It is read-only, because it doubles as a recovery/factory reset. They do not represent security risk, because system ignores them. They do not get loaded, no process is ever created for them and they are not considered when broadcasting intents. You cannot disable Google Play Services, because it is actually a framework, not app. Your only reasonable way to have it disabled is only after you persuade all the app authors not to use it. Good luck with that.
      - bad_user 8y ago
        > They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is read-only. So Google is lying in its press release, proving my point? Also, I do not care on what partition they are installed. That’s a technical detail which cannot serve as justification for locking in users. What isn’t a technical detail however is the fact that regular users do not know how to disable apps, because that option is hidden in the Settings menu and comes with scary warnings. Also, there is no app uploaded on https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ that depends on Google Play Services, so the point on persuading all app authors is obviously stretching it, since some of them have been persuaded already. Also this being about choice it’s pretty obvious that if I want to disable Google Play Services then I also want to avoid any app that depends on it. On the security risk, I don’t know if those components get loaded or not. As long as that code is on my phone, I cannot trust it not to be executed at some point in time. What if I enable that app by mistake? What if it gets enabled via the dozens of exploits that happen every year? Do you promise that it won’t ever be executed again? That’s not how security works.
dep_b 8y ago
I would be very interested what Google thinks is the price of my privacy. At least 50 bucks or I'm going to be disappointed.
throw2016 8y ago
For all intents and purposes Android is closed source and is not free. As for financials when you pay for your phone you are paying for it. Better remove the pretense and be closed. The same drivers that are used on Android are not available on Linux. Linux is running on your phone but you can install or use it. The Arm-Google partnership pretend to be open but for all effective practical purposes are closed and this is just clever theatre masquerading as open. Companies like Google have become experts at lulling people into a sense of complacency about open source and open platforms. And what are they actually doing. They are using open source software to build global surveillance spyware platforms with pervasively misleading language and dark patterns. Perhaps it's time open source licenses consider a condition that they can't be used for surveillance and spyware.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Also Project Treble kind of made the Linux kernel on Android behave like a mikrokernel, with drivers being implemented as separated processes, using Android's IPC to talk with the kernel. https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/ https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/
amelius 8y ago
> Android might not remain free For a long time I've been hoping to be able to pay for Google products so I can use them without being the product myself. And so this statement is sort of an answer to those prayers.
- loxs 8y ago
  Yeah, that would be the best thing to happen in Tech in recent history.
- repolfx 8y ago
  You won't get that. Look at Windows. You pay for it, and it includes ads and data tracking too. If the EU gets its way here, all that'll happen is that: a) New releases of Android won't be open source anymore. b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an elite luxury rather than something everyone can have. c) Android devices will still come with lots of Google services that will work in largely the same way, because most users actually want them. d) Cyanogen and other variants of Android designed for people who care an unusual amount about data and privacy will cease to exist. It'd be a classic case of regulatory own goals: nothing would get better, it'd get worse for everyone.
  - TheArcane 8y ago
    > b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an elite luxury rather than something everyone can have. This is pessimism bordering on FUD.
LolNoGenerics 8y ago
I wonder what would change if android wasn't free anymore. Android devices getting more expensive, better market share for apple?
vxNsr 8y ago
If it's suddenly gonna cost money, it was never really free before either. Google is far and away the worst OSS maintainer, a lot of their allegedly OSS work is really just a code dump with all the real work being done behind closed doors.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Go back and watch every WWDC. You'll see that they consistently say that iOS updates are always free. There is a reason they say that, it's not be accident or idle words. It's because the idea of a free OS upgrade for non FOSS is non-standard. Android moving to paid, means they would be like the overwhelming majority of business models for OS updates (Windows, MacOS). It also means that they were unable to successfully monetize/subsidize their OS over the long term - arguably the crowning achievement of Google - whereas Apple has been able to eat their own dogfood and make it more or less a singular product.
- plttn 8y ago
  To be clear: when they say paid, it would be a license to install Android as the OEM, not the end user directly paying for Android.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    And then what happens when a new upgrade comes through? It's just a one time OEM installation cost for eg Samsung etc...? Your carrier going to bill you for the update? The costs would get passed to the consumer no matter what though.
nfrankel 8y ago
I believe there's a word for that. Blackmail
ggggtez 8y ago
Unfortunately it seems like the EU is arguing that free software (with conditions) is illegal. And yet, in the US, we see defacto monopolies in ISPs double dipping on consumers and businesses all day long. The fact that major economies are taking diametrically opposed viewpoints is going to continue to cause chaos for the foreseeable future...
- Daishiman 8y ago
  What? That's not what they are saying at all. Why don't you actually read the ruling?
rayiner 8y ago
I don't see this as a bad thing. There was nothing wrong with for-pay operating systems, like Symbian. A manufacturer could just buy a license, and pass the cost along to the consumer, without the consumer being coerced into signing up for services and handing over their private data. A Symbian license used to be $5 per unit. Google's Android model likely makes Google multiples of that over the lifetime of each unit, but somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free." A simple exchange of currency for a product is a fantastic business model. Google has been instrumental in undermining it, with "free" products, and I wouldn't be sad to see that stop.
- blihp 8y ago
  Agreed. Given the direction Google has gone with Android (and it sure looks like they're working hard to try to kill it off in favor of something they control completely like Chrome OS/Fuchsia/whatever) it would be great to inject some actual competition into the mobile marketplace. The current Apple/Google duopoly isn't getting it done for me. > somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free." Unfortunately, Google got away with telling a whopper of a lie in that they were building a free and open platform when behind the scenes they were doing anything but. Maybe it was true in the first year or two but hasn't been the case this decade (i.e. the ODM agreements prohibiting non-Google flavors of Android which are pretty much the reason it's so difficult to find non-Google flavored devices based on the 'open' Android platform. IIRC, Amazon only managed to get it done by going to the few contract manufacturers who weren't already making any Google authorized devices for anyone else.)
- righteous 8y ago
  There's no way that Google will license Android OS for a mere $5/seat. They instead will price it on a multiple revenue potential revenue they collect from users under the current "free" model. I suspect in a market that Europe that turns out closer to $100/seat.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > without the consumer being coerced into signing up for services and handing over their private data These days I feel like that happens regardless of whether the "customer" is paying or not. Any compelling reason to believe otherwise?
chottocharaii 8y ago
I’d encourage readers to have a look at the actual decision here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm Googles behaviour is indefensible
- sandstrom 8y ago
  I second this! The reasoning behind the decision is spelled out in plain english. I encourage everyone to read the EU decision (takes ~3 min) and form your own opinion. This passage is an example: Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search. 1. Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps. 2. Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search. 3. Illegal obstruction of distribution of competing Android OS forks.
zjaffee 8y ago
I'm confused at how this is any different than how both android and ios embed siri and google assistant in over allowing other assistants to compete, or what about the fact that you need to log in with an apple/google account to really use the platforms in any meaningful way (for at least most android distributions). Part of me wonders if the EU just has a problem with google, as they have charged them time and time again, when other platforms engaging in anti-competitive practices get away with it.
- marichards 8y ago
  Market size matters. Also, I'm guessing a complaint has to be brought to the EU before they'll investigate. Are there any official complaints against Apple?
HillaryBriss 8y ago
he's bluffing. it makes no business sense for Google to charge customers or OEMs for Android. Android would lose market share. it's not like the world was clamoring for Google to produce Android in the first place. Google is good at search and advertising. they weren't a mobile OS and dev tool company in 2006 and they're still not. Android isn't all that good.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader. They pay for it by encouraging usage of their other services which they monetize with ads. An Android with 100% market share where every handset forced users to use Bing would be worthless to them. It's quite likely if these conditions were removed from the Android licenses that nothing would immediately change because there is no latent demand for Android devices with DuckDuckGo or Bing or OSM map apps. At least not in Europe. However, the principle remains that Google has no incentive to build Android if it gets used to funnel traffic to its own competitors, and especially it would be disastrous for developers if Android forked into many incompatible versions. Hence the most likely outcome is that Android simply becomes closed source, and to access it you either have to agree to today's terms and bundle their services, or pay to cover the revenue Google feels like they might not get if you don't.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    > Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services (e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money. What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple 3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio... What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position. The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and toward mobile.
Karishma1234 8y ago
I am not sure why Google should not make EU consumers pay those $5B fine by increasing prices of Android OS and other Google services for EU region. EU has become a parking lot for unelectable politicians who meddle with other people's life while themselves living at other people's expenses and this just another example of how EU will eventually simply break up.
mankash666 8y ago
EU's charges are a sham. I hope Google gives the EU regulators exactly what they deserve: Google should outright stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make the OS closed source (like Apple), disable side-loading apps (like Apple), purposefully make the mobile browser incompatible with W3C standards (like Apple) in an effort to drive developers & consumers to the app store, and slap a minimum price tag of $1000 on Pixel phones (like Apple). Maybe then, the true value of choice will sink in.
- detaro 8y ago
  After all that effort to keep manufacturers from using alternative OSes, they should now hand them a strong reason to invest a lot in those? Doesn't sound very logical to me.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    A good OS does not a win in the marketplace guarantee. Windows phone is a case in point. BTW - the suggested response is indeed a logical reaction to EU's illogical charges. True choice is allowing phones @ $150 - $1500 to exist, customized for every customer segment in the marketplace. True choice is the ability to tinker with the underlying OS and ROM. True choice is the ability to side-load apps despite __insert_agency_here__ not blessing it. And Android empowers those choices.
    - detaro 8y ago
      It were the logical reaction if "as closed as possible" and "the current situation" were the only two possible states. And with your proposed EU-ban, Google would leave massive hole in the market for handset makers to fill with alternatives, in a market large enough to motivate such development. That doesn't sound like something for Google to want, I believe their market position is better than that.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  if they disable side-loading of apps they'll make Android suck more as a development platform. they need to make it suck less. they're already doing a hell of a lot to drive consumers and developers to their app store. how much worse can that get?
qop 8y ago
What is the likelihood that Google actually pays the fine? What's most likely to happen for users in EU?
pornel 8y ago
The TFA is actually pretty clear: > The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system. And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of Android forks: In particular, Google: • has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); • made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and • has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Sure, and Pichai is saying it doesn't make good business sense for Google to spend a lot of money developing a mobile OS and then give it away for free unless they can use it to push their other products, like search. Google's business model was to give away the OS for free, but require Google apps to be bundled (in exchange for play store access). So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.
  - chottocharaii 8y ago
    That may be the argument. Yet it was considered by the commission & dismissed as there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts. Interesting! What are these ways?
a-dub 8y ago
Are there other parties that want this, or are they just replaying Microsoft in the 1990s. If they wanted to do something actually useful, they should take a look at privacy issues surrounding Android. It's like the damn thing was architected for maximum spreading of personal and behavioral data across apps.
- Sylos 8y ago
  Lawsuit for that is on its way. Filed by NOYB in the night that the GDPR took effect.
ezoe 8y ago
EU, you are fighting the wrong war. Bundled user-space software means nothing compared to the bundled OS. We should have a phone without OS, install the OS of our choice, just like ordinary computer. The non-free smartphone ecosystem doesn't allow me to do that. So, I refuse to own or use the phone.
- Tom4hawk 8y ago
  I hope Librem 5 will provide this experience.
  - ezoe 8y ago
    I think not. I lost all the hope on the smartphone ecosystem.
evadne 8y ago
This is preposterous. Android is more or less AOSP + Google Play services, and the latter are not free for manufacturers to use. There is a license fee. In addition devices need to pass a compatibility test suite (CTS) for them to be eligible for Google Play services. Similar requirements for using Google Pay. In my personal opinion Android is abused by Chinese OEMs who want the cheapest free thing they can put together. They buy SoC solutions from Mediatek, Allwinner, etc. and the end user never get OS updates or security patches anyhow. The OEMs need to be forced to support what they have shipped.
mchahn 8y ago
All I hear is "I'm going to take my ball and go home if you won't play my way".
derReineke 8y ago
Kay. I don't really see any issues here. They got a legitimate fine and now they might charge licensing. Maybe this will help open up the market a little.
ionised 8y ago
Android is 'free' in much the same way other Google services are 'free'. As in, they're not because you are giving a lot in return for its use. So fuck it. I'd rather pay more for an Android phones that give me more control over what is included with it and what can be removed. Ideally let me run an Android phone with NO Google applications whatsoever, without having to root it and mess around with community ROMs.
weightlossify 8y ago
google can't be expected to give away something for free and not get something back AND perhaps users should be given choice in all matters not OS core functionalities / search and others/
Justsignedup 8y ago
This is a huge positive. This puts a real price tag on the OS. I hope more policies do the same to email and other things. The hidden advertising cost is shitty because it is highly hidden.
enitihas 8y ago
While I understand that the law is not required to be a mathematical statement and requires case by case interpretation, I wonder if these leaves several burning questions on the table: 1. Was it illegal for apple to force install apple maps on iOS users, stiffling competing maps apps? 2. Is it illegal for apple to not provide other browsers JIT capabilities, effectively forcing them to be a skin on top of Safari? I understand that iOS has no market dominance. But if iOS reaches 60% shares in a country, can the country demand substantial changes to iOS to encourage competitors? 70%? 80%?. Does a company need to make its product more open as it starts dominating the market. Also, how would such market segments be defined for market domination? Phones? Smart phones? Phones with a particular characteristics? Phones with a particular OS(as phone inter operability is widely within OSes only) Not defending any side here, but would love to hear what I am missing here. Edit: As the press release of the commission says "market for .... licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.". It seems using this vocabulary even Apple can be branded a monopoly, dominant in "unlicensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the iOS mobile operating system". Then isn't even apple using their dominance of "app store for iOS" to dominate other market segments?
telltruth 8y ago
Why is Google shooting itself in the foot? Customers demands Google search, they really don’t need to force anyone to include it. I see miniscual losss - if at all - if they just didn’t had these restrictions. This is likely the dumbest thing they have done in a while and now Pitchai is doubling down for no apparent reason or benefit. His language actually looks so Microsofty circa 2000.

180 points by sahin-boydas 8y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

All the better. If it's not free, some non-spying alternatives may finally appear/gain wider adoption.

gepi79 8y ago
I do not understand why you have been down voted. Free commercial software and hardware is the strongest competition to open source software and hardware. If Google charged money then a more open source oriented competitor would have more chances to compete.
s3r3nity 8y ago
Just curious: why don't you consider Apple as a "non-spying" alternative? Or are you just saying that there's room for yet another option?
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  I didn't mean Apple, rather other attempts that all failed so far, such as Maemo/Moblin/Tizen etc. On the other hand, even though Apple definitely is tracking users to some extent and has a large database of users, including their real names, addresses and other personal data, they don't have the technical means to build such a complex profile of each person as Google. Based just on your search and visit history Google knows more about us, our fears and secrets more than our partners. So it's in our best interests not to strengthen their position further.

ForHackernews 8y ago

Android is already nonfree, in that it includes loads of proprietary bits. If Google starts trying to charge phone makers big bucks, that's just more incentive for Samsung to fork AOSP themselves. Google doesn't want to see a fractured ecosystem they can't control, so I agree with the article that it's an empty bluff.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simion314 8y ago
Google is working on a new Android kernel so they were planning in a long while to take full control and probably go closed source with newer Android versions.
- ge0rg 8y ago
  I don't think that replacing Linux under the hood of Android will change anything. Most of Android is licensed under the Apache license, probably due to the alternative Java runtime they took initially from the Apache Foundation. They sheer developer power Google has at hand to throw at Android development, including out-of-tree-kernel patchsets, means that it is a very significant effort to just keep pace with them, and the AOSP "code drops" come late and require major integration work. If they wanted to switch to a closed-source model, they could have adopted that for the runtime a long time ago, still keeping the closed-source blob on top of the Linux kernel. Maybe the EU decision will change the benefit balance of Android "being open source", and Google will go on with forking off / replacing the whole middleware, but I think that with their speed of Android development most commercially viable OEMs only have a chance to follow by subscribing to Google contracts (and maybe getting early access to new releases) anyway.
  - simion314 8y ago
    If Google has the copyright of the code their own developers wrote then they can relicense any code they wrote, including GPL. Edit Also they will probably try to replace Java with Dart to get around the Java/Oracle problem
    - ge0rg 8y ago
      They do have the copyright to the code they wrote, but not to the code they took and changed (Apache Harmony, Linux kernel). They can relicense everything that originated from them, and provide it under a pure commercial license or dual-license it. However, it might mean that they have to re-implement big parts of the Android runtime, or even do clean-room implementations by people not previously involved in those projects, to prevent legal attacks on the inevitably-similar code that results.

dontnotice 8y ago

"Given Google’s dominance in search and browsers and the popularity of its many web services, Pichai’s warning looks more like a bluff to court popular opinion than a genuine threat that Android will no longer be free." I wish these bloggers would keep their biases and unsubstantiated commentary to themselves. This fine is an assault on open source, the fact linux didn't attain mainstream appeal on the desktop was largely due to the lack of condition and harmonization across distros. In any other context fining an open source project for antitrust violations is absurd.

krzyk 8y ago
Why it is assault on open source? The problem is that Google bundles it's Chrome and search apps (which are not open source) together with android that is later installed on devices made my others. At least that what I see in the article.
ForHackernews 8y ago
Google is a multibillion dollar advertising company, not an "open source project". They're not fining ASOP, and Android is a nonfree OS.
- dontnotice 8y ago
  Are you suggestion that AOSP has nothing to do with Android!? And if we were to take the existence of AOSP into consideration then this fine seems even more ridicules and unwarranted.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Why existence of some source code or forks cancels the abuse?
mehrdadn 8y ago
> This fine is an assault on open source I don't see how telling Google not to force itself as the default preinstalled option on phones is an "assault on open source". > the fact the linux didn't attaint mainstream appeal on the desktop was largely due to the lack of condition and harmonization across distros Not sure what "condition and harmonization is", but if you mean the poor UI for normal people, then yes. I don't see the relevance of this to Google forcing itself onto people's phones. > and the EU wants to doom android to the same fate. It was literally a few days ago when I was wondering to myself how people were cool with Google search etc. coming preinstalled. I had no idea the EU was looking into this. As a result I don't have any reason to believe their goal is anything but fair competition.

mc32 8y ago

I know it’s not going to happen, but part of me wishes this would allow Windows Phone to be viable. It was such a great mobile OS for basic and not so basic functions. Unfortunately MS had no strategy and no independent serious developers spent their limited resources on it and it withered.

yread 8y ago
Yes, this ruling should've come 5 years earlier
digi_owl 8y ago
Except that MS of all companies kept burning compatibility bridges. For all its warts, Android can still run apps that have not been updated in years (how smart it is to do so is a whole different debate). One would have thought MS would understand what an advantage this gives, as they have been doing the same on desktop for decades. But on mobile they keep screwing it up.
timrichard 8y ago
I had to support a variety of devices for family and (mostly) friends, and I thought it was a terrible OS. (Disclaimer : I use iOS and Android equally, so not cheerleading for either)
toast0 8y ago
MS had worse than no strategy, they abandoned their strategy that was working. WP 8 was reasonably decent, and sold a lot of phones at the low-end ($50 for a Lumia 521 or later a 640 would get you a phone that basically worked, with a limited app catalog; vs a $50 Android that probably had low storage warnings on first boot). Then for WM 10, they had fired their QA team and re-orged away the phone team, and they delivered a stunningly poor OS release, but there were no cheap phones for it anyway -- the Lumia 650 was essentially spec equivalent to the 640, and they wanted app developers to start building 'universal' apps that would only work on Windows mobile 10, which I think still has fewer users than WP 8.
- pjmlp 8y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

> it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms Sorry, Sundar, but this signal was sent by you. Android users receive it in multiple ways when our phones nag us to turn on tracking options and your company builds a complex profile about all aspects of our lives. Yes, a proprietary non-tracking alternative starts to look more attractive.

bencollier49 8y ago

This is reminiscent of banks in the UK, who come out with direful warnings that they'll end free banking every time they're forced to lower their swingeing overdraft fees.

cobookman 8y ago

Why isn't Apple also being Fined?

simion314 8y ago
Because they do not have a monopoly in market A and abuse that to get an advantage on market B, where in this case A is mobile market from low to high end and B is search/user tracking/analytics/advertising
- klez 8y ago
  Nitpick: dominant position, not really a monopoly. But the rest of your point stands.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    But a controlling position is. The earlier terrm engrossment makes this concept clearer: To acquire most or all of (a commodity); monopolize (a market). https://www.thefreedictionary.com/engrossment https://www.thefreedictionary.com/engrossment The meaning is much the same as an engrossing thought or conversation: one that fully occupies your attention. It is as engrossment rather than monopoly that Adam Smith discusses exclusive control. Of trade with a region: The moderate capital of the [Hudson Bay] company, which, it is said, does not exceed one hundred and ten thousand pounds, may besides be sufficient to enable them to engross the whole, or almost the whole, trade and surplus produce of the miserable, though extensive country, comprehended within their charter. No private adventurers, accordingly, have ever attempted to trade to that country in competition with them. This company, therefore, have always enjoyed an exclusive trade in fact, though they may have no right to it in law.... Of skilled labour: Half a dozen wool-combers, perhaps, are necessary to keep a thousand spinners and weavers at work. By combining not to take apprentices they can not only engross the employment, but reduce the whole manufacture into a sort of slavery to themselves.... Of grain: [I]t is scarce possible, even by the violence of law, to establish such an extensive monopoly with regard to corn; and, wherever the law leaves the trade free, it is of all commodities the least liable to be engrossed or monopolized by the force of a few large capitals, which buy up the greater part of it. Not only its value far exceeds what the capitals of a few private men are capable of purchasing, but, supposing they were capable of purchasing it, the manner in which it is produced renders this purchase practicable.... Of land: Great tracts of uncultivated land were, in this manner, not only engrossed by particular families, but the possibility of their being divided again was as much as possible precluded for ever. It seldom happens, however, that a great proprietor is a great improver. In the disorderly times which gave birth to those barbarous institutions, the great proprietor was sufficiently employed in defending his own territories, or in extending his jurisdiction and authority over those of his neighbours. He had no leisure to attend to the cultivation and improvement of land.... And more. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Engross&prefix=The+Wealth+of+Nations&fulltext=Search+The+Wealth+of+Nations&fulltext=Search&searchToken=5xi3uawcgtzkzuekdccfndxe5 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Engro...

simion314 8y ago

Windows was not free and it did not help with the IE bundle case.

sourcesmith 8y ago

"Pichai highlights the fact a typical Android user will “install around 50 apps themselves” and can easily remove preinstalled apps." You cannot remove the pre-installed apps, in my experience, only the subsequent updates to those apps.

mehrdadn 8y ago
Yeah, I'd say this is wrong. His direct quote is [1]: > Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. If you prefer other apps—or browsers, or search engines—to the preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps instead, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers. "Easily disable or delete"? Not to mention the lack of deletion on a lot of these (...any? I don't recall if I've seen any with deletion), I don't always even find a hard way to disable or delete preinstalled apps on phones... unless we're talking about booting custom bootloaders and wiping your phone etc. [1] https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
- kevindqc 8y ago
  Don't you just need to long press the app icon and choose disable/delete?
  - enriquto 8y ago
    yes, but you cannot delete the google apps such as chrome or gmail (the option is not "enabled")
    - digi_owl 8y ago
      Thankfully those are most often bundled as stubs that take barely any space. roll back the updates and then disable. Did that to Chrome for the longest time as i was using Firefox on my Android device (before Mozilla went nuts. Now i am flipflopping between Opera and Brave, while waiting for Vivaldi to get a mobile version).

bmcusick 8y ago

That's basically what the EU is demanding. The EU has handed down what is an anti-tying decision. "You can't tie Android to Google Search, because that prevents competition in Search." Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee. (It could also possibly fund itself from search revenue (like Firefox) and App Store fees, although the second one could be broken up by the EU too on anti-tying grounds) It's no different from when Windows was prevented from tying Windows to Internet Explorer. It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.), but it also forced browsers to find independent business models.

AnssiH 8y ago
Yeah, I don't personally see a problem with this. Having OEMs pay a licensing fee to Google seems better than having Google stiffle competition by bundling Google Play and Search and requiring OEMs to not ship alternative non-Google AOSP products.
ge0rg 8y ago
Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee. A licensing fee would be a valid and reasonable outcome. It probably can even work without making Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL). The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly. but it also forced browsers to find independent business models It stopped Microsoft from preventing independent business models for browsers; it was just too late already for the commercial browser vendors of the time. And the current EU ruling will hopefully allow other mobile OS developers (or startups) to compete on more equal grounds. Of course we still have the network effect of Google Play, featuring a market dominance over Android apps and Android users. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another future EU ruling requiring Google to unbundle Google Play from all but technical requirements, possibly allowing users to legally get access to Google Play on AOSP-based devices, or using alternative clients.

enriquto 8y ago

They are downright lying. The animation on Pichai's talk tries to present removing the google chrome icon from the main screen as "uninstalling" it. Do they really think people are idiots?

pentae 8y ago
Yes. And sadly, most people are idiots.

coinerone 8y ago

I would love to Buy an Operating system for my Smartphone if it is well supported and maintained. Like buying OSX or Windows or a commercial Linux Version. Also i would like to see a third Player on the Market.

criddell 8y ago
> i would like to see a third Player on the Market Tizen? Windows Phone?
- skykooler 8y ago
  Sailfish OS?
  - coinerone 8y ago
    Yes. But one that can successfully compete in terms of "get popular apps for my Smartphone".

sjwright 8y ago

In what sense is Android "free" right now? Android—by which I mean the Android a consumer would recognise and expect—hasn't been "free" in any sense of the word for quite some time.

digi_owl 8y ago
Possibly never. I recall some tech bloggers voicing puzzlement when early Android tablets didn't ship with Marketplace installed. Thing is that at the time Google insisted that all Android devices had to be fitted with a mobile network radio. End result was that they basically handed Apple the first runner advantage in the tablet market.

ikeboy 8y ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/oracle-lawyer-says-googles-android-generated-31-billion-revenue-idUSKCN0UZ2W9 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/orac...

jmarinez 8y ago

The way Google's response is written is perhaps a sample of Pichai's application for White House Correspondent in the Trump administration. The argument is so ill worded its mindbugling. When did "open platforms" become synonymous with bundling? What the EU has done is call the bs in Google's speak. @Pichai - if you and all your high concentration of PhDs can't come up with a better business model than tracking and mind-controlling people, then yes, charge. Charge what you think Android is worth. We will evaluate the offering against our liberty. Well done EU!!

chappi42 8y ago

What a nice PR reply Pichal is delivering here. There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles, but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice. I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice. What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every cent of the fine!

hydandata 8y ago
Also: - Just like on WP, you cannot set some things to open in other browsers. - No extension support, because they know perfectly well what many people would install first, an add blocker.
- Infinitesimus 8y ago
  To be fair, you can install FF, disable chrome and everything should work since WebView is now unbundled
  - beenBoutIT 8y ago
    You can install Chromium for Android and get everything except Flash working.
kajecounterhack 8y ago
> There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice. Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom? > The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it? As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source. The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.

mehrdadn 8y ago

Did this story get demoted somehow? How/why, and why silently so? I thought I saw it on the front page but now it's on page 4, when it currently has 35 points in 1 hour, and there's nothing comparable on that page (everything else is much older or lower voted).

devmunchies 8y ago
looks like it to me. i had read this earlier and came back to read comments and i had to go several pages in. why would YC want to sensor this?
sctb 8y ago
The discussion tripped the flamewar detector, which we've just turned off.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Oh haha wow, okay thanks!

drc0 8y ago

and yet I still cannot uninstall facebook from samsung phones.

gmiller123456 8y ago
What phone are you using? I've had a Galaxy S3, S5, and now S7. I can (and have) uninstalled Facebook on all of them. None of them came with it installed?
vetinari 8y ago
We all have different problems. I cannot install Facebook or Messenger on a Sony phone. due to a permission, that used to be defined by Sony in pre-Android 7 and now is defined by Facebook, i.e. by app with different signature. The old permission definition still lingers on the phone and the only way to get rid of it is to reset the phone to factory settings. Which I'm obviously not going to do.

undef_in 8y ago

Considering there software update model for Nexus/Pixel devices People will likely jump to iBoat.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

adrianhel 8y ago

Antitrust? To make money by giving away software that contains your free, but monetized software? Vendors are still able to bundle other browsers. What's next? Me no likey.

Radle 8y ago
Vendors are not capable of bundling other search engines, when they preinstall the google playstore.
- adrianhel 8y ago
  Play Store makes the Android gears grind. Go with Ubuntu then. I do really want an OSS mobile OS. Android is close enough though.

bad_user 8y ago

Despicable how Google can lie in a press release. I’ve owned 5 Android phones thus far from LG, Motorola and Samsung and the preinstalled apps could not be uninstalled on either of them.

vetinari 8y ago
"or disable" I've owned multitude devices since original G1 till today, and every single of them allowed to disable Google apps. In fact, I have disabled most of them.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Not good enough. If they cannot be uninstalled it means they are part of the base operationg system, which means that: 1. They represent a constant security risk, since the disabled version does not get updated 2. Other apps can rely on Google’s components; they actually warn that by disabling them you can run into misbehavior of other apps Also, last I tried you can’t disable Google Play Services, which is actually the most important piece.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    It is good enough. They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is read-only. It is read-only, because it doubles as a recovery/factory reset. They do not represent security risk, because system ignores them. They do not get loaded, no process is ever created for them and they are not considered when broadcasting intents. You cannot disable Google Play Services, because it is actually a framework, not app. Your only reasonable way to have it disabled is only after you persuade all the app authors not to use it. Good luck with that.
    - bad_user 8y ago
      > They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is read-only. So Google is lying in its press release, proving my point? Also, I do not care on what partition they are installed. That’s a technical detail which cannot serve as justification for locking in users. What isn’t a technical detail however is the fact that regular users do not know how to disable apps, because that option is hidden in the Settings menu and comes with scary warnings. Also, there is no app uploaded on https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ that depends on Google Play Services, so the point on persuading all app authors is obviously stretching it, since some of them have been persuaded already. Also this being about choice it’s pretty obvious that if I want to disable Google Play Services then I also want to avoid any app that depends on it. On the security risk, I don’t know if those components get loaded or not. As long as that code is on my phone, I cannot trust it not to be executed at some point in time. What if I enable that app by mistake? What if it gets enabled via the dozens of exploits that happen every year? Do you promise that it won’t ever be executed again? That’s not how security works.

dep_b 8y ago

I would be very interested what Google thinks is the price of my privacy. At least 50 bucks or I'm going to be disappointed.

throw2016 8y ago

For all intents and purposes Android is closed source and is not free. As for financials when you pay for your phone you are paying for it. Better remove the pretense and be closed. The same drivers that are used on Android are not available on Linux. Linux is running on your phone but you can install or use it. The Arm-Google partnership pretend to be open but for all effective practical purposes are closed and this is just clever theatre masquerading as open. Companies like Google have become experts at lulling people into a sense of complacency about open source and open platforms. And what are they actually doing. They are using open source software to build global surveillance spyware platforms with pervasively misleading language and dark patterns. Perhaps it's time open source licenses consider a condition that they can't be used for surveillance and spyware.

pjmlp 8y ago
Also Project Treble kind of made the Linux kernel on Android behave like a mikrokernel, with drivers being implemented as separated processes, using Android's IPC to talk with the kernel. https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/ https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/

amelius 8y ago

> Android might not remain free For a long time I've been hoping to be able to pay for Google products so I can use them without being the product myself. And so this statement is sort of an answer to those prayers.

loxs 8y ago
Yeah, that would be the best thing to happen in Tech in recent history.
repolfx 8y ago
You won't get that. Look at Windows. You pay for it, and it includes ads and data tracking too. If the EU gets its way here, all that'll happen is that: a) New releases of Android won't be open source anymore. b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an elite luxury rather than something everyone can have. c) Android devices will still come with lots of Google services that will work in largely the same way, because most users actually want them. d) Cyanogen and other variants of Android designed for people who care an unusual amount about data and privacy will cease to exist. It'd be a classic case of regulatory own goals: nothing would get better, it'd get worse for everyone.
- TheArcane 8y ago
  > b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an elite luxury rather than something everyone can have. This is pessimism bordering on FUD.

LolNoGenerics 8y ago

I wonder what would change if android wasn't free anymore. Android devices getting more expensive, better market share for apple?

vxNsr 8y ago

If it's suddenly gonna cost money, it was never really free before either. Google is far and away the worst OSS maintainer, a lot of their allegedly OSS work is really just a code dump with all the real work being done behind closed doors.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Go back and watch every WWDC. You'll see that they consistently say that iOS updates are always free. There is a reason they say that, it's not be accident or idle words. It's because the idea of a free OS upgrade for non FOSS is non-standard. Android moving to paid, means they would be like the overwhelming majority of business models for OS updates (Windows, MacOS). It also means that they were unable to successfully monetize/subsidize their OS over the long term - arguably the crowning achievement of Google - whereas Apple has been able to eat their own dogfood and make it more or less a singular product.

plttn 8y ago
To be clear: when they say paid, it would be a license to install Android as the OEM, not the end user directly paying for Android.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  And then what happens when a new upgrade comes through? It's just a one time OEM installation cost for eg Samsung etc...? Your carrier going to bill you for the update? The costs would get passed to the consumer no matter what though.

nfrankel 8y ago

I believe there's a word for that. Blackmail

ggggtez 8y ago

Unfortunately it seems like the EU is arguing that free software (with conditions) is illegal. And yet, in the US, we see defacto monopolies in ISPs double dipping on consumers and businesses all day long. The fact that major economies are taking diametrically opposed viewpoints is going to continue to cause chaos for the foreseeable future...

Daishiman 8y ago
What? That's not what they are saying at all. Why don't you actually read the ruling?

rayiner 8y ago

I don't see this as a bad thing. There was nothing wrong with for-pay operating systems, like Symbian. A manufacturer could just buy a license, and pass the cost along to the consumer, without the consumer being coerced into signing up for services and handing over their private data. A Symbian license used to be $5 per unit. Google's Android model likely makes Google multiples of that over the lifetime of each unit, but somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free." A simple exchange of currency for a product is a fantastic business model. Google has been instrumental in undermining it, with "free" products, and I wouldn't be sad to see that stop.

blihp 8y ago
Agreed. Given the direction Google has gone with Android (and it sure looks like they're working hard to try to kill it off in favor of something they control completely like Chrome OS/Fuchsia/whatever) it would be great to inject some actual competition into the mobile marketplace. The current Apple/Google duopoly isn't getting it done for me. > somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free." Unfortunately, Google got away with telling a whopper of a lie in that they were building a free and open platform when behind the scenes they were doing anything but. Maybe it was true in the first year or two but hasn't been the case this decade (i.e. the ODM agreements prohibiting non-Google flavors of Android which are pretty much the reason it's so difficult to find non-Google flavored devices based on the 'open' Android platform. IIRC, Amazon only managed to get it done by going to the few contract manufacturers who weren't already making any Google authorized devices for anyone else.)
righteous 8y ago
There's no way that Google will license Android OS for a mere $5/seat. They instead will price it on a multiple revenue potential revenue they collect from users under the current "free" model. I suspect in a market that Europe that turns out closer to $100/seat.
mehrdadn 8y ago
> without the consumer being coerced into signing up for services and handing over their private data These days I feel like that happens regardless of whether the "customer" is paying or not. Any compelling reason to believe otherwise?

chottocharaii 8y ago

I’d encourage readers to have a look at the actual decision here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm Googles behaviour is indefensible

sandstrom 8y ago
I second this! The reasoning behind the decision is spelled out in plain english. I encourage everyone to read the EU decision (takes ~3 min) and form your own opinion. This passage is an example: Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search. 1. Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps. 2. Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search. 3. Illegal obstruction of distribution of competing Android OS forks.

zjaffee 8y ago

I'm confused at how this is any different than how both android and ios embed siri and google assistant in over allowing other assistants to compete, or what about the fact that you need to log in with an apple/google account to really use the platforms in any meaningful way (for at least most android distributions). Part of me wonders if the EU just has a problem with google, as they have charged them time and time again, when other platforms engaging in anti-competitive practices get away with it.

marichards 8y ago
Market size matters. Also, I'm guessing a complaint has to be brought to the EU before they'll investigate. Are there any official complaints against Apple?

HillaryBriss 8y ago

he's bluffing. it makes no business sense for Google to charge customers or OEMs for Android. Android would lose market share. it's not like the world was clamoring for Google to produce Android in the first place. Google is good at search and advertising. they weren't a mobile OS and dev tool company in 2006 and they're still not. Android isn't all that good.

repolfx 8y ago
Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader. They pay for it by encouraging usage of their other services which they monetize with ads. An Android with 100% market share where every handset forced users to use Bing would be worthless to them. It's quite likely if these conditions were removed from the Android licenses that nothing would immediately change because there is no latent demand for Android devices with DuckDuckGo or Bing or OSM map apps. At least not in Europe. However, the principle remains that Google has no incentive to build Android if it gets used to funnel traffic to its own competitors, and especially it would be disastrous for developers if Android forked into many incompatible versions. Hence the most likely outcome is that Android simply becomes closed source, and to access it you either have to agree to today's terms and bundle their services, or pay to cover the revenue Google feels like they might not get if you don't.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services (e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money. What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple 3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio... What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position. The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and toward mobile.

Karishma1234 8y ago

I am not sure why Google should not make EU consumers pay those $5B fine by increasing prices of Android OS and other Google services for EU region. EU has become a parking lot for unelectable politicians who meddle with other people's life while themselves living at other people's expenses and this just another example of how EU will eventually simply break up.

mankash666 8y ago

EU's charges are a sham. I hope Google gives the EU regulators exactly what they deserve: Google should outright stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make the OS closed source (like Apple), disable side-loading apps (like Apple), purposefully make the mobile browser incompatible with W3C standards (like Apple) in an effort to drive developers & consumers to the app store, and slap a minimum price tag of $1000 on Pixel phones (like Apple). Maybe then, the true value of choice will sink in.

detaro 8y ago
After all that effort to keep manufacturers from using alternative OSes, they should now hand them a strong reason to invest a lot in those? Doesn't sound very logical to me.
- mankash666 8y ago
  A good OS does not a win in the marketplace guarantee. Windows phone is a case in point. BTW - the suggested response is indeed a logical reaction to EU's illogical charges. True choice is allowing phones @ $150 - $1500 to exist, customized for every customer segment in the marketplace. True choice is the ability to tinker with the underlying OS and ROM. True choice is the ability to side-load apps despite __insert_agency_here__ not blessing it. And Android empowers those choices.
  - detaro 8y ago
    It were the logical reaction if "as closed as possible" and "the current situation" were the only two possible states. And with your proposed EU-ban, Google would leave massive hole in the market for handset makers to fill with alternatives, in a market large enough to motivate such development. That doesn't sound like something for Google to want, I believe their market position is better than that.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
if they disable side-loading of apps they'll make Android suck more as a development platform. they need to make it suck less. they're already doing a hell of a lot to drive consumers and developers to their app store. how much worse can that get?

qop 8y ago

What is the likelihood that Google actually pays the fine? What's most likely to happen for users in EU?

pornel 8y ago

The TFA is actually pretty clear: > The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system. And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of Android forks: In particular, Google: • has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); • made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and • has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

jaredklewis 8y ago
Sure, and Pichai is saying it doesn't make good business sense for Google to spend a lot of money developing a mobile OS and then give it away for free unless they can use it to push their other products, like search. Google's business model was to give away the OS for free, but require Google apps to be bundled (in exchange for play store access). So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.
- chottocharaii 8y ago
  That may be the argument. Yet it was considered by the commission & dismissed as there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts. Interesting! What are these ways?

a-dub 8y ago

Are there other parties that want this, or are they just replaying Microsoft in the 1990s. If they wanted to do something actually useful, they should take a look at privacy issues surrounding Android. It's like the damn thing was architected for maximum spreading of personal and behavioral data across apps.

Sylos 8y ago
Lawsuit for that is on its way. Filed by NOYB in the night that the GDPR took effect.

ezoe 8y ago

EU, you are fighting the wrong war. Bundled user-space software means nothing compared to the bundled OS. We should have a phone without OS, install the OS of our choice, just like ordinary computer. The non-free smartphone ecosystem doesn't allow me to do that. So, I refuse to own or use the phone.

Tom4hawk 8y ago
I hope Librem 5 will provide this experience.
- ezoe 8y ago
  I think not. I lost all the hope on the smartphone ecosystem.

evadne 8y ago

This is preposterous. Android is more or less AOSP + Google Play services, and the latter are not free for manufacturers to use. There is a license fee. In addition devices need to pass a compatibility test suite (CTS) for them to be eligible for Google Play services. Similar requirements for using Google Pay. In my personal opinion Android is abused by Chinese OEMs who want the cheapest free thing they can put together. They buy SoC solutions from Mediatek, Allwinner, etc. and the end user never get OS updates or security patches anyhow. The OEMs need to be forced to support what they have shipped.

mchahn 8y ago

All I hear is "I'm going to take my ball and go home if you won't play my way".

derReineke 8y ago

Kay. I don't really see any issues here. They got a legitimate fine and now they might charge licensing. Maybe this will help open up the market a little.

ionised 8y ago

Android is 'free' in much the same way other Google services are 'free'. As in, they're not because you are giving a lot in return for its use. So fuck it. I'd rather pay more for an Android phones that give me more control over what is included with it and what can be removed. Ideally let me run an Android phone with NO Google applications whatsoever, without having to root it and mess around with community ROMs.

weightlossify 8y ago

google can't be expected to give away something for free and not get something back AND perhaps users should be given choice in all matters not OS core functionalities / search and others/

Justsignedup 8y ago

This is a huge positive. This puts a real price tag on the OS. I hope more policies do the same to email and other things. The hidden advertising cost is shitty because it is highly hidden.

enitihas 8y ago

While I understand that the law is not required to be a mathematical statement and requires case by case interpretation, I wonder if these leaves several burning questions on the table: 1. Was it illegal for apple to force install apple maps on iOS users, stiffling competing maps apps? 2. Is it illegal for apple to not provide other browsers JIT capabilities, effectively forcing them to be a skin on top of Safari? I understand that iOS has no market dominance. But if iOS reaches 60% shares in a country, can the country demand substantial changes to iOS to encourage competitors? 70%? 80%?. Does a company need to make its product more open as it starts dominating the market. Also, how would such market segments be defined for market domination? Phones? Smart phones? Phones with a particular characteristics? Phones with a particular OS(as phone inter operability is widely within OSes only) Not defending any side here, but would love to hear what I am missing here. Edit: As the press release of the commission says "market for .... licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.". It seems using this vocabulary even Apple can be branded a monopoly, dominant in "unlicensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the iOS mobile operating system". Then isn't even apple using their dominance of "app store for iOS" to dominate other market segments?

telltruth 8y ago

Why is Google shooting itself in the foot? Customers demands Google search, they really don’t need to force anyone to include it. I see miniscual losss - if at all - if they just didn’t had these restrictions. This is likely the dumbest thing they have done in a while and now Pitchai is doubling down for no apparent reason or benefit. His language actually looks so Microsofty circa 2000.