6 ms·

Complying with the EC’s Android decision

41 points by ucaetano 8y ago

zokier 8y ago
Well, that's big fat middle finger towards EC. Because the permission to use forked Android is limited to EEA, no manufacturer is going to use that and lock themselves out of the rest of the world. But the real punch comes here: > we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA While it is bit vague, it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices. So congratulations EC, you accomplished exactly nothing but making devices more expensive in your market and padding Googles pockets even more.
- biktor_gj 8y ago
  I don't speak lawyer, but what I understood is this: 1. Going forward, we'll allow two licensing tiers: full package and light 2. All manufacturers selling phones in the EU will have to choose the licensing level for new devices Something tells me vendors will be _encouraged_ to choose a particular licensing model or Google will make the full integration cheaper to keep Chrome and Search on as many devices as before this change. Oh my, how I miss Maemo...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - skykooler 8y ago
    Sailfish OS still exists in the EU, which is the descendant of Maemo.
- user2222 8y ago
  I don't think so. With this move, now device manufacturers would have more choice to either include Google's services by paying additional price or choose from other providers (paid same, less or more or even free. Think OSM instead of Google Maps). This increases competition for the betterment of everyone. Consumers who can't imagine life without Google would drive the makers towards Google again while others would have the advantage of being exposed to more diverse services.
- kjjw 8y ago
  Sorry but I can’t see this as anything but akin to a victim-blaming argument.
- ajross 8y ago
  > permission to use forked Android This is spun terminology. Everyone can use forked Android under the AOSP license. The "permission" in question is the permission to license Google's proprietary stuff under terms (i.e. alongside forked Android products) Google doesn't want to offer. Now, one can argue that the EC decision was sound on principle (I'm mixed, personally). But it's not an issue of Google refusing to let people use Android. I mean, they never had to open source the thing in the first place!
  - Reelin 8y ago
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that if a device manufacturer wanted to license GApps for any of their devices then they had to use an official Android version on all of their devices. In other words, the proprietary license was tied to their (non) use of the AOSP.
    - ajross 8y ago
      That's exactly correct. At no point was a manufacturer prevented from using AOSP. They were denied a license to the Google apps. So spinning this as "Google says you can't use AOSP" is just wrong. Users of open source software are fine. Proprietary licensees have to negotiate for their licenses and abide by restrictions the IP owner has put on the use. And, yeah, there's an arguable point that at some point those restrictions can run afoul of antitrust statutes. And that's an argument worth having, and my personal opinions are, as I said, mixed on this case. But none of that has anything to do with being able to use Android.
      - Reelin 8y ago
        Ahh yes, how could I have been so dense? Google wasn't saying they couldn't use AOSP, just that if they did then they wouldn't be allowed to use GApps. Of course, if you want to be profitable then you have to sell devices. And if you want to actually sell any devices, then you're either going to need to bundle GApps or role your own competitive alternative. And of course rolling a competitive alternative is going to (of necessity) include duplicating the entire Play Store ecosystem. Yeah, totally doable, go right ahead and use AOSP. It's kind of like the Mafia. We're not saying you can't compete with us, we're just saying that if you do compete with us then Tony over here will break both your legs. But of course, you're more than welcome to compete with us if that's what you want to do! I do so love having the freedom to make choices under duress. /s
- Reelin 8y ago
  I hadn't really been following this previously, but I did glance at the official EC press release just now (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm). From that document: * 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"). That last one in particular sounds quite abusive to me, given that I'm a fan of FOSS. > it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance? Or are you perhaps suggesting that the EC should have backed down in order to avoid being bullied by Google?
  - zokier 8y ago
    > Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance It is stupidity to attempt and fail so spectacularly
    - mtgx 8y ago
      Are you suggesting the EC should have been much more aggressive in their ruling then? Because then I would have to agree.
    - Reelin 8y ago
      So what are they supposed to do then? Just pretend nothing is wrong?! This may raise prices somewhat in the short term, but hopefully it will curb this kind of behavior in the long term.
      - zdragnar 8y ago
        I'm not following your logic. How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 8y ago
> We believe that Android has created more choice, not less. More choice in what? Definitely not more choice in mobile Operating Systems.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  They are weaseling: they mean more choice than Apple-thats-it, which was briefly the case. Having to refer to so ancient and obsolete a virtue is damning in itself, I agree.
Nomentatus 8y ago
More recent articles: http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-antitrust-manufacturers/ http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-antitrust-ma... See also: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro.. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro.... The latter fumbles breaking down what parts "Android" has, neglecting the Java Virtual Machine, and thus most of the OS.

41 points by ucaetano 8y ago

Well, that's big fat middle finger towards EC. Because the permission to use forked Android is limited to EEA, no manufacturer is going to use that and lock themselves out of the rest of the world. But the real punch comes here: > we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA While it is bit vague, it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices. So congratulations EC, you accomplished exactly nothing but making devices more expensive in your market and padding Googles pockets even more.

biktor_gj 8y ago
I don't speak lawyer, but what I understood is this: 1. Going forward, we'll allow two licensing tiers: full package and light 2. All manufacturers selling phones in the EU will have to choose the licensing level for new devices Something tells me vendors will be _encouraged_ to choose a particular licensing model or Google will make the full integration cheaper to keep Chrome and Search on as many devices as before this change. Oh my, how I miss Maemo...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- skykooler 8y ago
  Sailfish OS still exists in the EU, which is the descendant of Maemo.
user2222 8y ago
I don't think so. With this move, now device manufacturers would have more choice to either include Google's services by paying additional price or choose from other providers (paid same, less or more or even free. Think OSM instead of Google Maps). This increases competition for the betterment of everyone. Consumers who can't imagine life without Google would drive the makers towards Google again while others would have the advantage of being exposed to more diverse services.
kjjw 8y ago
Sorry but I can’t see this as anything but akin to a victim-blaming argument.
ajross 8y ago
> permission to use forked Android This is spun terminology. Everyone can use forked Android under the AOSP license. The "permission" in question is the permission to license Google's proprietary stuff under terms (i.e. alongside forked Android products) Google doesn't want to offer. Now, one can argue that the EC decision was sound on principle (I'm mixed, personally). But it's not an issue of Google refusing to let people use Android. I mean, they never had to open source the thing in the first place!
- Reelin 8y ago
  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that if a device manufacturer wanted to license GApps for any of their devices then they had to use an official Android version on all of their devices. In other words, the proprietary license was tied to their (non) use of the AOSP.
  - ajross 8y ago
    That's exactly correct. At no point was a manufacturer prevented from using AOSP. They were denied a license to the Google apps. So spinning this as "Google says you can't use AOSP" is just wrong. Users of open source software are fine. Proprietary licensees have to negotiate for their licenses and abide by restrictions the IP owner has put on the use. And, yeah, there's an arguable point that at some point those restrictions can run afoul of antitrust statutes. And that's an argument worth having, and my personal opinions are, as I said, mixed on this case. But none of that has anything to do with being able to use Android.
    - Reelin 8y ago
      Ahh yes, how could I have been so dense? Google wasn't saying they couldn't use AOSP, just that if they did then they wouldn't be allowed to use GApps. Of course, if you want to be profitable then you have to sell devices. And if you want to actually sell any devices, then you're either going to need to bundle GApps or role your own competitive alternative. And of course rolling a competitive alternative is going to (of necessity) include duplicating the entire Play Store ecosystem. Yeah, totally doable, go right ahead and use AOSP. It's kind of like the Mafia. We're not saying you can't compete with us, we're just saying that if you do compete with us then Tony over here will break both your legs. But of course, you're more than welcome to compete with us if that's what you want to do! I do so love having the freedom to make choices under duress. /s
Reelin 8y ago
I hadn't really been following this previously, but I did glance at the official EC press release just now (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm). From that document: * 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"). That last one in particular sounds quite abusive to me, given that I'm a fan of FOSS. > it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance? Or are you perhaps suggesting that the EC should have backed down in order to avoid being bullied by Google?
- zokier 8y ago
  > Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance It is stupidity to attempt and fail so spectacularly
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Are you suggesting the EC should have been much more aggressive in their ruling then? Because then I would have to agree.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    So what are they supposed to do then? Just pretend nothing is wrong?! This may raise prices somewhat in the short term, but hopefully it will curb this kind of behavior in the long term.
    - zdragnar 8y ago
      I'm not following your logic. How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mcphage 8y ago

> We believe that Android has created more choice, not less. More choice in what? Definitely not more choice in mobile Operating Systems.

Nomentatus 8y ago
They are weaseling: they mean more choice than Apple-thats-it, which was briefly the case. Having to refer to so ancient and obsolete a virtue is damning in itself, I agree.

Nomentatus 8y ago

More recent articles: http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-antitrust-manufacturers/ http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-antitrust-ma... See also: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro.. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro.... The latter fumbles breaking down what parts "Android" has, neglecting the Java Virtual Machine, and thus most of the OS.