4 ms·

I'm having a really hard time figuring out what happy ending the EU has in mind here. Google stops licensing Android to OEMs and doubles down on Pixel. It takes

I'm having a really hard time figuring out what happy ending the EU has in mind here. Google stops licensing Android to OEMs and doubles down on Pixel. It takes them years to catch up to Apple's marking and distribution head start, if they ever do. Samsung goes back to Tizen, which nobody wants, and sales plummet. All the other Android OEMs disappear. All we have left is Apple and the most expensive, proprietary and locked down platform in computing history. A single gatekeeper effectively controls the app space. Safari dictates what happens on the web. Who wins here except for the company that's already the richest in history? Or, more likely, the EU keeps going down this road and tech companies eventually start treating it like the backward nanny state it is and wall it off.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
This isn't a realistic scenario. If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Apple will continue to be a niche player because they like it that way, they aren't a threat and never have been. And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Microsoft would probably reenter the mobile arena as well. You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses, and they aren't going to disappear because Google is forced to comply with the law. There is no scenario where Apple becomes a big scary monopoly that wins everything. That's what Google is, and that's why they're being fined.
- cageface 8y ago
  Who is going to use Android with no app store and a bunch of crappy bundled apps? The answer is nobody. Look how far Amazon has been able to push that with all their engineering and marketing muscle. Apple is a niche player only because they clung to their margins like a bag of heroin and let cheap Android phones eat their lunch. If it weren't for Android they would have zero serious competition. I find myself in the very odd position today of having for the first time some sympathy with the Brexiters.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    The same people that were already using J2ME and Symbian apps before iPhone became a thing. Even Google used to have maps versions that targeted those platforms, before they went with Android.
    - cageface 8y ago
      I.E. nobody that can afford even the cheapest iPhone. The world has changed since J2ME mattered.
- bitmapbrother 8y ago
  >If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Every OEM release of Android is forked so your statement doesn't make sense. >Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Google doesn't need to confine their OS to just Pixel devices. They can also work with any OEM that wants to ship the Google version of Android and GMS - (Nokia, Motorola, etc). Given a choice, consumers would easily choose a phone running Android with GMS over any other non iOS device. Furthermore, Google could also close source Android and not continue to give Samsung a free OS to cake their services on. The decline of Samsung as they scramble to make Tizen their only smartphone OS would be entertaining to watch. >And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Yes, just like all of those desktop Linux distributions have flourished. >You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses You mean the same ones that can't write operating systems or secure their devices?
pergadad 8y ago
I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store & Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big ones to commit fully to Google's version and companies like Samsung that might have been interested in providing a phone with Cyanogen, Lineage, etc etc simply couldn't do it. It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.
- cageface 8y ago
  Why would Google continue to license Android to Samsung when it can no longer make any revenue from Samsung phones? At that point it would only make sense for them to throw all their efforts into Pixel and catch up as best they can.
  - dvogel 8y ago
    They would negotiate different licensing terms that require the licensee to risk their own capital on a bet that the consumer wants android devices with all of the associated Google services. That would be different from their current position of essentially paying for Google services with an in-kind payment of non-competition.
- Anagmate 8y ago
  > "buy only from us or never from us" And? Seems like a valid move (from both moral and corporate perspective) to me.
  - kingbirdy 8y ago
    If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's abusing your monopoly.
kerng 8y ago
How about Google just allows OEM to license without preventing them to customize as they see fit best for their customers? Or allow them to build other solutions, not forcing them to do it the Google way? Its the exact same evil business practicr Microsoft did in the 90s, surprising Google got away with it that long. But also Microsoft wasn't fined until something like 10 years later...
- cageface 8y ago
  The key difference at that time was that Microsoft had zero real competition and was stifling innovation in the OS and web space. Instead today Android is the only alternative to the most proprietary and richest company in the history of computing, which needs no legal remedies or special favors.
  - kerng 8y ago
    Android has something like 85-90% marketshare - not different then Windows back in the day. Google bundling their Search with it is just pushing their own agenda.
    - cageface 8y ago
      Yet still most people develop for iOS first and then later port to Android, if at all. It's really not a comparable situation at all.
      - datalist 8y ago
        That was true about seven to ten years ago.
        cageface 8y ago
        Absolutely still true today. If you think otherwise you are clearly not in the business of developing mobile apps. Ten years ago native mobile apps were barely even a thing. Take the HQ app for just one recent high profile app out of countless other examples.
bitmapbrother 8y ago
Google doesn't need to stop licensing GMS to OEM's. They simply need to stop giving it away for free and start charging OEM's to license it. And the OEM's that do license it will, of course, pass on the expenses to the consumer and raise the cost of the device. If the EU wants to stop Google from forcing OEM's to install their apps then congratulations you've now put OEM's in a position where they will now pay for GMS licensing and increase phone prices. Ironically, this decision will favor Google as the additional revenue from GMS licensing will allow them to decrease their dependency on search and further diversify their revenue streams. That 5 billion dollar fine will quickly be replenished with EU GMS licensing fees. >The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google’s suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators—it’s of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.[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...
blub 8y ago
The happy ending is that megacorps stop screwing around and start obeying the laws, like everyone else. In your fantasy scenario you didn't consider that the current version(s) of Android running on billions of devices are mostly open source, and there's nothing preventing Samsung, or Samsung + Sony + whoever to take that, combine it with one of the other existing app store and GApps replacement apps (Firefox, some maps e.g. Nokia, etc) and continuing like nothing happened. What are the Android app developers going to do, say "oh well" and settle for their market share shrinking to almost nothing which is what the Pixel amounts to? No, they will publish on the new Samsung app store. And life moves on. Perhaps Jolla gets a boost, or we see a new or old player try something new.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

This isn't a realistic scenario. If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Apple will continue to be a niche player because they like it that way, they aren't a threat and never have been. And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Microsoft would probably reenter the mobile arena as well. You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses, and they aren't going to disappear because Google is forced to comply with the law. There is no scenario where Apple becomes a big scary monopoly that wins everything. That's what Google is, and that's why they're being fined.

cageface 8y ago
Who is going to use Android with no app store and a bunch of crappy bundled apps? The answer is nobody. Look how far Amazon has been able to push that with all their engineering and marketing muscle. Apple is a niche player only because they clung to their margins like a bag of heroin and let cheap Android phones eat their lunch. If it weren't for Android they would have zero serious competition. I find myself in the very odd position today of having for the first time some sympathy with the Brexiters.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  The same people that were already using J2ME and Symbian apps before iPhone became a thing. Even Google used to have maps versions that targeted those platforms, before they went with Android.
  - cageface 8y ago
    I.E. nobody that can afford even the cheapest iPhone. The world has changed since J2ME mattered.
bitmapbrother 8y ago
>If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Every OEM release of Android is forked so your statement doesn't make sense. >Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Google doesn't need to confine their OS to just Pixel devices. They can also work with any OEM that wants to ship the Google version of Android and GMS - (Nokia, Motorola, etc). Given a choice, consumers would easily choose a phone running Android with GMS over any other non iOS device. Furthermore, Google could also close source Android and not continue to give Samsung a free OS to cake their services on. The decline of Samsung as they scramble to make Tizen their only smartphone OS would be entertaining to watch. >And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Yes, just like all of those desktop Linux distributions have flourished. >You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses You mean the same ones that can't write operating systems or secure their devices?

pergadad 8y ago

I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store & Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big ones to commit fully to Google's version and companies like Samsung that might have been interested in providing a phone with Cyanogen, Lineage, etc etc simply couldn't do it. It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.

cageface 8y ago
Why would Google continue to license Android to Samsung when it can no longer make any revenue from Samsung phones? At that point it would only make sense for them to throw all their efforts into Pixel and catch up as best they can.
- dvogel 8y ago
  They would negotiate different licensing terms that require the licensee to risk their own capital on a bet that the consumer wants android devices with all of the associated Google services. That would be different from their current position of essentially paying for Google services with an in-kind payment of non-competition.
Anagmate 8y ago
> "buy only from us or never from us" And? Seems like a valid move (from both moral and corporate perspective) to me.
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's abusing your monopoly.

kerng 8y ago

How about Google just allows OEM to license without preventing them to customize as they see fit best for their customers? Or allow them to build other solutions, not forcing them to do it the Google way? Its the exact same evil business practicr Microsoft did in the 90s, surprising Google got away with it that long. But also Microsoft wasn't fined until something like 10 years later...

cageface 8y ago
The key difference at that time was that Microsoft had zero real competition and was stifling innovation in the OS and web space. Instead today Android is the only alternative to the most proprietary and richest company in the history of computing, which needs no legal remedies or special favors.
- kerng 8y ago
  Android has something like 85-90% marketshare - not different then Windows back in the day. Google bundling their Search with it is just pushing their own agenda.
  - cageface 8y ago
    Yet still most people develop for iOS first and then later port to Android, if at all. It's really not a comparable situation at all.
    - datalist 8y ago
      That was true about seven to ten years ago.
      - cageface 8y ago
        Absolutely still true today. If you think otherwise you are clearly not in the business of developing mobile apps. Ten years ago native mobile apps were barely even a thing. Take the HQ app for just one recent high profile app out of countless other examples.

bitmapbrother 8y ago

Google doesn't need to stop licensing GMS to OEM's. They simply need to stop giving it away for free and start charging OEM's to license it. And the OEM's that do license it will, of course, pass on the expenses to the consumer and raise the cost of the device. If the EU wants to stop Google from forcing OEM's to install their apps then congratulations you've now put OEM's in a position where they will now pay for GMS licensing and increase phone prices. Ironically, this decision will favor Google as the additional revenue from GMS licensing will allow them to decrease their dependency on search and further diversify their revenue streams. That 5 billion dollar fine will quickly be replenished with EU GMS licensing fees. >The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google’s suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators—it’s of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.[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...

blub 8y ago

The happy ending is that megacorps stop screwing around and start obeying the laws, like everyone else. In your fantasy scenario you didn't consider that the current version(s) of Android running on billions of devices are mostly open source, and there's nothing preventing Samsung, or Samsung + Sony + whoever to take that, combine it with one of the other existing app store and GApps replacement apps (Firefox, some maps e.g. Nokia, etc) and continuing like nothing happened. What are the Android app developers going to do, say "oh well" and settle for their market share shrinking to almost nothing which is what the Pixel amounts to? No, they will publish on the new Samsung app store. And life moves on. Perhaps Jolla gets a boost, or we see a new or old player try something new.