5 ms·

"Unlike Apple, which only allows apps to be downloaded from its own storefront, Google’s platform is more open." Oh the irony. Android is more open than iOS an

"Unlike Apple, which only allows apps to be downloaded from its own storefront, Google’s platform is more open." Oh the irony. Android is more open than iOS and yet its Google that EU found to be at fault with Android. How is this not a classic example that, if anything, Android provides a more open platform?

lucideer 8y ago
It's (unfortunately) not illegal anywhere to have non-open platforms. It is illegal in the EU to use the dominant market position of one product to push another product in an anticompetitive manner. The latter is what Google got done for in the EU. You might think what Apple does is worse, and should be illegal, but that would be a separate hypothetical law.
- lucisferre 8y ago
  Is this not what happens with the bundling of Mail, Calendar and Music in iOS and the fact that many default actions and integrations for these apps in iOS are not available to alternatives?
  - kevinh 8y ago
    My understanding is that Apple does not have a large enough market share in the EU to be considered for similar violations.
  - redbeard0x0a 8y ago
    No, Google got in trouble for mandating other companies/products to include Google products (gmail, chrome, etc) in their products (Samsung Galaxy 9, LG whatever phone, etc). Apple doesn't mandate any other company to change something with their product (Apple installs mail, calendar, music on their own iPhone, iPad, etc). They aren't using their market position to coerce another company to do something in Apple's favor. (as far as Android vs. iOS and the associated hardware phones and tablets).
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > No, Google got in trouble for mandating other companies/products to include Google products (gmail, chrome, etc) in their products (Samsung Galaxy 9, LG whatever phone, etc). If you only look for one thing they got in trouble for. Other things include prioritizing their shopping results on their search engine. There are cases and rulings that don't have anything to do with "coerce another company" wrt monopoly laws. You can be in trouble for only putting your own products on your own products too, no other company has to be involved...just have to be large enough (by volume).
    - muro 8y ago
      Only Chrome, Play Store and Search app.
      - jeffbax 8y ago
        … and Google Play Services, which is the bigger angle and what took Android from being "open" to arguably impossible to support the bulk of "Android" software https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-android/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-... You don't get Google Play Services without a lot of terms and conditions, and without it you can't really be a useful Android product short of trying to replace the whole store like Amazon does to questionable degrees.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The primary concern is that Apple puts it's own software and features on it's own devices. That's fine, and what Google does on the Pixel line is also fine and not under scrutiny. The issue is that Google uses blatantly illegal terms to force bundling of various apps upon other manufacturers, and this is illegal in both the US and the EU and most other jurisdictions. This is a business-to-business issue, not a business-to-consumer issue. Hence why Apple putting it's own software on it's own hardware is not similar. (Also, Apple is not even approaching being a monopoly, Google already is one.)
annabellish 8y ago
Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. Google are/were. It's that simple. iOS is a closed platform, and Android is a more open platform, but that's 100% orthogonal to Apple or Google's _business practices_. Closed platforms are not illegal, while anticompetitive behaviour is.
- tzakrajs 8y ago
  Can you explain to me how the Apple Maps limitation of Siri is not anti-competitive? I believe you are right but I am curious as a layman.
  - gcburn2 8y ago
    Apple is 24% of the smartphone market so anything they do on their their systems only affects that minority portion and isn't denying competitors access to the market. Android on the other hand has a 74% share of smartphone market so anything they do impacts a majority of the market and could limit others access to the market.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    What Apple Maps limitation? You can open Google Maps with Siri now with an ugly work around (https://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/17/how-to-use-google-maps-with-siri/ https://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/17/how-to-use-google-maps-with-...) And in iOS 12 any app will be able to provide a Siri shortcut.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. This is a categorically false statement. I can point to a lot of places where Apple are doing quite a bit to prevent competition on their platform. I mean, browser engine choice is the easiest to see of dozens of ways Apple is doing something to prevent competition on their platform. Did you mean something else by your statement I do not understand? Even if you mean "with their platform" vs "on their platform" as if users can go somewhere else, that's a far cry from "aren't doing anything" as they are in fact doing lots of things.
yandie 8y ago
The reason EU fined Google wasn't that Android was not an open ecosystem, but that Google leveraged other dominant services (Youtube, Maps etc...) to enforce manufacturers to install Search and Chrome on Android phones.
PunchTornado 8y ago
read the law about dominant position in a market
kodablah 8y ago
To put it simply, Apple's actions would not be tolerated if they were in a dominant position, as defined by market share not revenue or any other metric. In general, reasonable societies don't want all businesses subjected to fairness rules, only the ones whose unfairness can be harmful. This is because being subjected to some of these fairness rules is a hindrance to small company growth. They have chosen to use volume as a metric to determine the size at which these rules kick in. It would be tough to argue that other metrics, such as revenue, should be used to determine size because volume determines the number of people affected not cost.
toast0 8y ago
Apple isn't absuing its monopoly in one area to force phone manufacturers who license its software to include inessential software that helps increase its market share in others. In no small part, because Apple doesn't license its software to other manufacturers, and doesn't have a monopoly on mobile devices operating systems in Europe. The EU sanctioned Microsoft for forcing manfuacturers to include Internet Explorer, even though Windows is an open platform and users could download competing browsers.
izacus 8y ago
EU's document says that iOS does not compete in the same market as Android, so it was entirely excluded from consideration. Funny isn't it? :)
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  This is because iOS is not an Android competitor. iOS is not licensed to manufacturers, it is not even in the market. Android, on the other hand, is. Licensing to third parties is the key issue at hand. (Windows Mobile was arguably Android's last viable competitor, and it's dead.)
scarface74 8y ago
There was nothing “open” about Google not allowing manufacturers to ship phones using Android forks if they also ship Google certified Android phones. On the scale of 1-10 openness, that’s a -100
- skybrian 8y ago
  What's your rating for not allowing anyone else to build compatible phones at all?
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The same but Steve Jobs never ranted back in the day.... https://mobile.twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?lang=en the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

lucideer 8y ago

It's (unfortunately) not illegal anywhere to have non-open platforms. It is illegal in the EU to use the dominant market position of one product to push another product in an anticompetitive manner. The latter is what Google got done for in the EU. You might think what Apple does is worse, and should be illegal, but that would be a separate hypothetical law.

lucisferre 8y ago
Is this not what happens with the bundling of Mail, Calendar and Music in iOS and the fact that many default actions and integrations for these apps in iOS are not available to alternatives?
- kevinh 8y ago
  My understanding is that Apple does not have a large enough market share in the EU to be considered for similar violations.
- redbeard0x0a 8y ago
  No, Google got in trouble for mandating other companies/products to include Google products (gmail, chrome, etc) in their products (Samsung Galaxy 9, LG whatever phone, etc). Apple doesn't mandate any other company to change something with their product (Apple installs mail, calendar, music on their own iPhone, iPad, etc). They aren't using their market position to coerce another company to do something in Apple's favor. (as far as Android vs. iOS and the associated hardware phones and tablets).
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > No, Google got in trouble for mandating other companies/products to include Google products (gmail, chrome, etc) in their products (Samsung Galaxy 9, LG whatever phone, etc). If you only look for one thing they got in trouble for. Other things include prioritizing their shopping results on their search engine. There are cases and rulings that don't have anything to do with "coerce another company" wrt monopoly laws. You can be in trouble for only putting your own products on your own products too, no other company has to be involved...just have to be large enough (by volume).
  - muro 8y ago
    Only Chrome, Play Store and Search app.
    - jeffbax 8y ago
      … and Google Play Services, which is the bigger angle and what took Android from being "open" to arguably impossible to support the bulk of "Android" software https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-android/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-... You don't get Google Play Services without a lot of terms and conditions, and without it you can't really be a useful Android product short of trying to replace the whole store like Amazon does to questionable degrees.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The primary concern is that Apple puts it's own software and features on it's own devices. That's fine, and what Google does on the Pixel line is also fine and not under scrutiny. The issue is that Google uses blatantly illegal terms to force bundling of various apps upon other manufacturers, and this is illegal in both the US and the EU and most other jurisdictions. This is a business-to-business issue, not a business-to-consumer issue. Hence why Apple putting it's own software on it's own hardware is not similar. (Also, Apple is not even approaching being a monopoly, Google already is one.)

annabellish 8y ago

Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. Google are/were. It's that simple. iOS is a closed platform, and Android is a more open platform, but that's 100% orthogonal to Apple or Google's _business practices_. Closed platforms are not illegal, while anticompetitive behaviour is.

tzakrajs 8y ago
Can you explain to me how the Apple Maps limitation of Siri is not anti-competitive? I believe you are right but I am curious as a layman.
- gcburn2 8y ago
  Apple is 24% of the smartphone market so anything they do on their their systems only affects that minority portion and isn't denying competitors access to the market. Android on the other hand has a 74% share of smartphone market so anything they do impacts a majority of the market and could limit others access to the market.
- scarface74 8y ago
  What Apple Maps limitation? You can open Google Maps with Siri now with an ugly work around (https://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/17/how-to-use-google-maps-with-siri/ https://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/17/how-to-use-google-maps-with-...) And in iOS 12 any app will be able to provide a Siri shortcut.
kodablah 8y ago
> Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. This is a categorically false statement. I can point to a lot of places where Apple are doing quite a bit to prevent competition on their platform. I mean, browser engine choice is the easiest to see of dozens of ways Apple is doing something to prevent competition on their platform. Did you mean something else by your statement I do not understand? Even if you mean "with their platform" vs "on their platform" as if users can go somewhere else, that's a far cry from "aren't doing anything" as they are in fact doing lots of things.

yandie 8y ago

The reason EU fined Google wasn't that Android was not an open ecosystem, but that Google leveraged other dominant services (Youtube, Maps etc...) to enforce manufacturers to install Search and Chrome on Android phones.

PunchTornado 8y ago

read the law about dominant position in a market

kodablah 8y ago

To put it simply, Apple's actions would not be tolerated if they were in a dominant position, as defined by market share not revenue or any other metric. In general, reasonable societies don't want all businesses subjected to fairness rules, only the ones whose unfairness can be harmful. This is because being subjected to some of these fairness rules is a hindrance to small company growth. They have chosen to use volume as a metric to determine the size at which these rules kick in. It would be tough to argue that other metrics, such as revenue, should be used to determine size because volume determines the number of people affected not cost.

toast0 8y ago

Apple isn't absuing its monopoly in one area to force phone manufacturers who license its software to include inessential software that helps increase its market share in others. In no small part, because Apple doesn't license its software to other manufacturers, and doesn't have a monopoly on mobile devices operating systems in Europe. The EU sanctioned Microsoft for forcing manfuacturers to include Internet Explorer, even though Windows is an open platform and users could download competing browsers.

izacus 8y ago

EU's document says that iOS does not compete in the same market as Android, so it was entirely excluded from consideration. Funny isn't it? :)

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
This is because iOS is not an Android competitor. iOS is not licensed to manufacturers, it is not even in the market. Android, on the other hand, is. Licensing to third parties is the key issue at hand. (Windows Mobile was arguably Android's last viable competitor, and it's dead.)

scarface74 8y ago

There was nothing “open” about Google not allowing manufacturers to ship phones using Android forks if they also ship Google certified Android phones. On the scale of 1-10 openness, that’s a -100

skybrian 8y ago
What's your rating for not allowing anyone else to build compatible phones at all?
- scarface74 8y ago
  The same but Steve Jobs never ranted back in the day.... https://mobile.twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?lang=en the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"