16 ms·

Google to Charge Phone Makers for Android Apps in Europe

203 points by ucaetano 8y ago

ce4 8y ago
Google has used their position to strongarm manufacturers before. Skyhook Wifi Geolocation services was for a short time default on Moto/Samsung. Fearing loss of valuable essid wifi/cell tower scanning data collection, google forced Skyhook out. That was when wifi geolocation was still in its infancy on Android. https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l... Edit: some corrections
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  Also, Google used their position to keep Android forks from gaining a competitive foothold in the marketplace. >Google allegedly ran afoul of EU rules by deterring manufacturers from using Android forks. Google "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," the commission said. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illegally-used-android-to-dominate-search-must-pay-5b-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illega...
  - zmmmmm 8y ago
    As far as I can tell that was a lie. Google allows OEMs to sell devices running "alternative Android versions", but it insists those versions must be fully Android compatible. It prohibits incompatible forks, which to me seems like an extremely good thing which they have relatively few ways of enforcing given the open source nature of Android.
    - olvo 8y ago
      I don't understand what you claim is a lie? I also don't see how effectively subverting the license, presumably including code of outside developers, would make that any less shady.
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      You are missing the distinction between AOSP's license and google play services' license. You can do as you wish with AOSP. If you want google play services (which all OEMs do), a whole new set of things kick in.
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  While I do think that incident was questionable, one relatively minor, fairly ancient incident in 10 years is not really compelling in terms of Google's current practices. If Google is seriously abusing it's market dominance there should be much more serious, larger scale and recent examples than that. The fact that there aren't suggests to me that Google's market abuse here is relatively indirect. Which doesn't make it non-existent, but the idea that Google is exploiting its market dominance in any sort of explicit manner doesn't seem to hold water to me. It is all about the much more subtle question of whether their market offering implicitly results in monopoly abuse because it links their services together through the incentives in the offering.
  - ce4 8y ago
    Here's another one where Google forced Acer to comply and stop the launch of an unapproved phone: https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-acer-smartphone-launch-aliyun-android https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-... It's a double edged sword. Of course you want to avoid fragmentation and consumer frustration. But where do you draw a line and call it what it is: monopolistic behaviour that stifles competition.
mtgx 8y ago
Sounds like a good thing for consumers and Android device makers, who will no longer be coerced by Google to install its apps "for free". It's a pretty bad thing for Google in the long term, whose apps will inevitably lose market share. Although some OEMs will initially "freak out" because they'll think people will stop buying their phones if Gmail doesn't come pre-installed (I find it extremely hard to believe, but I guess anything is possible with some people), eventually they'll likely end-up pre-installing Microsoft or Amazon or whoever else' apps instead - and they will get paid to do it.
- writepub 8y ago
  Many attempts at decoupling Google & Android have failed in the marketplace. Billions have been poured into a viable third mobile OS (Windows phone, meego, tizen, sailfish ...). The consumers have spoken - they want iOS or Google's Android. This is horrible for Europe - where end users will eventually pay more for their preferred 'Google Android'.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > The consumers have spoken - they want iOS or Google's Android. Consumers haven't said shit, nobody asks them. All the general population cares about is that they can buy a phone that can handle calls, texts, and apps for popular services. I miss Windows phone, even though I also hated it. Microsoft had a decent UX paradigm for touch devices, way better than Google and Apple had. But you can't just "lean-startup" yourself into this market using your own brand. They should've waited a year longer, should've used that time to polish the OS instead of releasing a barely-functional version. We could've had a decent competitor with a refreshing mobile experience.
  - untog 8y ago
    That's not really true, though. Users never said, for example, that they didn't want Windows Phone. They said that they wanted access to service X, Y and Z or app 1, 2 or 3, and Windows Phone did not provide that access. That isn't consumer rejection so much as consumer reaction to the duopoly they are presented with.
  - 8y ago
Mikeb85 8y ago
This is silly. It's a much better experience to use the Google suite of apps on Android than the random shit browsers/email clients/music players/etc... that Samsung, LG and others put on their phones. At the end of the day, Android is open source and anyone is welcome to fork (Amazon)/not use Google apps (Chinese manufacturers in China), this is just handing Apple a massive advantage for being a closed ecosystem and a huge loss for consumers and OEMs.
- asr 8y ago
  > anyone is welcome to fork This is wrong. One of the three major pieces of this case is the allegation that Google has hindered those who wish to fork by preventing them from making phones with any of the major phone OEMs: "In particular, Google ... 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')." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
  - Mikeb85 8y ago
    They can fork if they don't want to pre-install Google apps. Lots of Chinese phones have alternative app stores.
    - asr 8y ago
      No, until now, you were not allowed to fork just because you agreed not to install Google apps on that phone -- you were only allowed to fork if you didn't want to install Google apps on any phone you made. So, for example, Samsung couldn't decide to offer an Android phone without Google unless it was willing to shut down its entire current business. The allegation is that because of this, anyone looking to fork Android had a very hard time finding good OEMs to make their phones. E.g., maybe the Amazon fire phones would have worked if they could have gotten a Tier 1 OEM to make the phones so they could have put out a better product. But nobody would agree to stop making all of their current Android phones to see (I assume; there is no public version of the decision yet so I'm making up the example).
Urgo 8y ago
So let me get this.. Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to do anything and you need to use their app store but they're totally fine here. Good job Europe.
- tzs 8y ago
  It's hard to commit antitrust violations in your dealings with yourself. What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Google draws scrutiny from antitrust regulators in regard to phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers.
  - islanderfun 8y ago
    This is very interesting POV. Thinking out loud, if Micrsoft made their own PCs from the beginning and got as big as it did, would they have had the same problems? > phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers What if pixel phones become the only way to use Android? These are just semi-rhetorical (and unlikely scenarios) questions.
  - dirkgently 8y ago
    > What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Yes, why not? Or that rule only applies to Google?
    - tzs 8y ago
      That "rule" doesn't apply to anyone. Google is not in trouble for making their own operating system and store and using them on their own phone. They are getting in trouble for the way they try to get other phones to include Google's store. With Apple the OS maker, the store maker, and the phone maker are all the same entity so it doesn't even make sense to say that the OS vendor is trying to force their store on the phone vendor. If Apple draws antitrust scrutiny, it will be for something different that what is drawing attention to Google, such as for not letting third party stores on their phone.
rahimnathwani 8y ago
"By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors." This is some sloppy reporting. The 'Android operating system' is licensed under the Apache 2.0 licence[0]. Nothing in that licence obligates handset manufacturers to 'load the free apps'. [0] https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses
- dannyr 8y ago
  Google makes separate agreements with device manufacturers. That's what the article is referring too.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dahfizz 8y ago
    Can you expand on this? There is nothing stopping a manufacturer from putting "pure" android on their devices. The reason they freely choose to bundle G apps is because the G apps enhance the final product.
    - kryptiskt 8y ago
      They ship Google apps because they must do so to be able to put in Google Play. That's not freely chosen.
      - dahfizz 8y ago
        But they don't need Google Play Services either. They choose to bundle it in because it makes their phones better.
        hadrien01 8y ago
        They choose to bundle Google Play. Because if you don't have it (with Facebook, and Twitter, and Snapchat, and other essential apps for many people), your device won't sell. But to get the Google Play store, you also need to include Google Play services, Google Play Music, YouTube, Chrome, Google Maps, Location Services, Google Keep, Google Docs, other stores (Movies, NewsStand, Books), etc. This ruling finally forces Google to decouple at least some of its apps from the package, and to sell some devices (but not all of them) with or without Google apps.
394549 8y ago
> By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors. It sounds like a very good thing to me to prevent companies like Google from having such terms, which allow them to use dominance on one area to fuel dominance in many others. Each product should stand on it's own, and the idea that the entire ecosystem is one big product is frankly BS.
jackconnor 8y ago
Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU. I guess there are at least a few companies that will be happy to use Android without Google, but my guess is for the rest this is just more bottom line money out of their pocket going straight to Google. Was this what they were going for?
- distances 8y ago
  > Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU. I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. This seems rational to me, and in line with the antitrust decision as the bundling of apps isn't any more mandatory for manufacturers.
  - jackconnor 8y ago
    I'm saying the premise as a whole backfired. I assume the end goal was to benefit end consumers. Now, end consumers will have to pay more for something that was previously free, since my gut says that most device companies will choose to pay the licensing agreement and just pass the costs along by increasing the sticker price.
    - IanCal 8y ago
      If there's an actual cost to the items it now means other providers could actually compete, which is the goal. It would now be possible to sell cheaper than Google if you can make something the consumer wants at a lower cost. Competition benefits consumers. More importantly was that Google were doing various forced things (like requiring installing all Google things on all devices, heavily limiting possible competition). Ending that is important, even if it shifts costs around. Edit - a simple way of viewing this is if this makes more money for Google, why weren't they doing it anyway? If not, can it really be costing consumers more?
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > I assume the end goal was to benefit end consumers I wouldn't assume this. In simple terms, surely they realized punitive measures on a something consumers choose will harm the chooser. They might have some idealistic long-term consumer benefit goal in mind (e.g. magically growing competitors, magic corporate altruism, etc), but it is divorced from reality.
gandalfian 8y ago
Are we sure it isn't the other way around? You will be able to pay for permission to NOT install Google apps?
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
This is fantastic. By placing a cost on Google Apps, competitors have a viable place to provide an alternative offer at a lower price. This is exactly the sort of change we need here in the US as well. Mission success in Europe. Probably the biggest question I have is that they still appear to be selling "bundles" according to the article, which seems contrary to the European decision. Is a phone manufacturer who licenses "the bundle" allowed to omit apps from the bundles? Or have the bundles been narrowly defined around the EU's current ruling of which bundles aren't allowed, and they're still going to force OEMs to carry specific sets of Google apps?
- c8g 8y ago
  >“Android phone makers wishing to distribute Google apps may now also build noncompatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets” in Europe, Google said in a statement. “They will also be able to license Google Play separately from Search and Chrome, with full freedom to install rival apps as before.”
thrillgore 8y ago
They'll pass the price on to their consumers, or make their own stand-ins.
glenrivard 8y ago
The EU consumer ends up losing.
hadrien01 8y ago
> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companies wanting to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser, allowing handset makers to partner with rival services. Still not decoupled enough for my taste. Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. They also don't say anything about decoupling and shrinking the hundreds of megabytes of mandatory Google Play services constantly tracking you. (for example: will you still be mandated to make all Location Services go through Google if you want Google Play on your phone?)
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. Bear in mind, the apps Google's trying to force install are primarily Search and Chrome, which Google says they'll offer a "financial incentive" for OEMs to include. So more than likely, they'll pay OEMs to install Chrome and Search, and OEMs can cover the cost of licensing the others with it. So a wash for companies still shipping all Google apps. But OEMs can choose not to include some of Google's other pack-ins, and say, Firefox and DuckDuckGo, or Microsoft with Bing and Edge could make a competing bid to be the preinstalled search and browser, to provide revenue with which the OEM could then buy the license for the Play Store. So this will probably be cost-neutral for phones packed with the status quo, but offers the chance for third parties to outbid Google on search and browser, or undercut Google's costs for their other apps, and OEMs will be able to leave Google's apps out of the image if they prefer to ship their own, like Samsung often does.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. " That's still a huge issue. I shouldn't have to pay for Google Books if I don't want to include it on my device.
- beaner 8y ago
  > Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products. By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.
bubblethink 8y ago
This doesn't change the end result too much in the traditional Android ecosystem because nothing changes on the engineering side of things. You still need a system level play services blob to run most common android apps. And this doesn't change that. However, what's interesting is that if the non-compete exclusivity clause has been overruled, someone like Samsung can launch phones with their play services equivalent, or someone like Amazon or Microsoft can get more manufacturers to build phones with their play services equivalent. Any of these should theoretically reduce the reliance on play services.
- pkaye 8y ago
  Now they need to make Apple do.the same with their app store.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Unrelated and a bit whataboutist, but if the rules are triggered at a certain market share, Apple will price themselves as necessary to remain under that share.
gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
This has always felt very bizarre to me. From an anti-competitive standpoint it makes sense, but from an antitrust i.e. harming the consumer standpoint, it feels a bit nebulous. Who is actually the beneficiary of this action? It seems pretty dubious that it helps customers, after all, the whole thing stems from the fact that the customers want the Play Store. It says that they would offer would be financial incentives for partnering with chrome and google. Is it just gonna be like "access to Google Play is $10, but if you bundle our services, we'll give you $10!" Or is the effect that it increases the leverage of other handset makers to essentially extract rents of digital real estate from Google like Apple does?
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  The EU doesn't have American style antitrust law that only kicks in and places restrictions on allowable behavior when you have a large enough monopoly. The EU has competition law that places restrictions on how you can behave as soon as you have a 40% share of a given market. Under EU competition law, once you have that 40% market share in one area, you may not use that market share as a weapon against competitors in other areas.
  - gowld 8y ago
    As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number.
    - GeekyBear 8y ago
      >As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number. The intent is different too. The EU is looking to protect a healthy level of competition in the marketplace, while we in the US have moved the goalposts to "can you prove this particular monopoly is doing consumers harm"?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - 8y ago
butz 8y ago
Who needs app stores anyway? Let's build progressive web apps and target all platforms.
- kitten_mittens_ 8y ago
  Aren’t PWAs only supported on Google’s very own browser?
RaleyField 8y ago
Good news, everyone! I never wanted them. It would be swell if they could also start charging for syncing functionality and google account integration.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MarkMc 8y ago
I don't understand why Google are doing this. I thought the EU imposed that huge fine because Google had a clause in their contract with handset manufacturers that said, "If you want Play Services, you cannot sell a forked version of Android". Why can't Google simply remove this clause?
- mankash666 8y ago
  Because Google is not a non-profit. They'd like to monetize their OS and services.
- wmf 8y ago
  They did remove it. I don't know if unbundling Chrome was forced by the EU but it's consistent with EU principles.
- AnssiH 8y ago
  There were three separate issues, and they have now been addressed by Google: 1. App bundling. 2. Selling Android forks. 3. Payments for exclusive installation of Google Search. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/complying-ecs-android-decision/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/compl...
- aviraldg 8y ago
  Sure, and while they're at it they may as well shut down the Play Store as well, because app developers won't be able to deal with it. Try explaining why your app doesn't work to thousands of users with terrible Chinese phones with all kinds of API incompatibilities.
MarkMc 8y ago
So Google will charge Samsung $1,000 per handset for Play Services, but then pay Samsung $1,000 to have Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, etc pre-installed. Result: Google meets its legal obligations to unbundle their software but in practice the handset manufacturers don't have a choice.
- andun 8y ago
  Yes, they will have the choice of also selling Android handsets without Play Services, which before they couldn't do.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    This. Samsung has already done deals with Microsoft and Dropbox previously to pre-load their services on some Samsung phones. Imagine if you could buy a "Windows" Android, with Office 365 + bing preloaded and optimized like a Windows Phone 2.0 sold next to a Google Android phone. As a consumer, I love having that type of option, and the manufacturer can also add their own software / services.
    - atomi 8y ago
      You lost me at preloaded.
    - makomk 8y ago
      Historically speaking, if I remember correctly, Microsoft has paid phone manufacturers and cell networks to set Bing as the search engine on their smartphones and completely disable the ability for users to change it. I reckon a large part of the reason Google ended up paying to set their search engine as the default on mobile is because otherwise many users would have to jump through hoops every time they searched just to use it. If this goes through, you will use Bing for searches on mobile and you will like it.
- AnssiH 8y ago
  Nope: > The decision also requires Google to refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect as these practices. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
qwerty456127 8y ago
I hope this is going to help to attract more attention to competing services. The only Google thing that I don't know of a good alternative to (at least because it already has so much valuable content uploaded) is YouTube. Monopolies are evil.
- kmlx 8y ago
  Respectfully I disagree. Monopolies are good, they create lasting value (see google). All companies should strive to build monopolies and own their market. Peter Thiel - 0 to 1
  - qwerty456127 8y ago
    IMHO they should strive to by means of fair practices (that don't include using their dominant positions to suppers competition or use their wealth to buy-and-close other companies) but should never achieve that.
tannhaeuser 8y ago
Fantastic. Can I have my Samsung phone retroactively switched to a Google-free O/S, with the option to install Maps and maybe a couple other services? I'd even pay extra for it.
- dna_polymerase 8y ago
  Like LineageOS + Micro G? Yes, that's possible. Requires some work though.
Animats 8y ago
Cool. Does this mean Android phones will run properly without any Google services?
alienreborn 8y ago
3 Choices for OEMS: - ASOP Vanilla or their forked version [Free] - Include Play Store and Google Services [Pay up] - Add-on Chrome with Google Search on top of Play Store [Free] Prices of flagship phones are already higher than they are in US, now they will be increased again.
- anowlcalledjosh 8y ago
  Is this speculation, or sourced? The article seems to contradict you: > Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companies that want to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser, allowing handset makers to team up with rival services. The company did not say how much it would charge for the licenses.
  - alienreborn 8y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-licensing-bundle-chrome-search https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro...
beerlord 8y ago
What is the commercial motivation of Google to maintain AOSP now? They are just enabling their 'competitors'.
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
If any phone makers actually have the courage to try to bootstrap a new non-google ecosystem, bravo to you.
jraph 8y ago
Well, too bad, this means that as a customer, I'll probably have to pay for something I go out of my way to get rid of if I ever buy a new Android phone. I hope there will be some way to get a refund like when not accepting Windows licenses on computers.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yAnonymous 8y ago
This is actually a good chance for alternative app stores, because that and the browser are the only essential software you'd be missing from the package, and the browser can be replaced for free. I hope we see Google Play vanish. Their pricing and the way it's ran are cancerous. Competition would be good, even if it's from Amazon or another major company. Phones with Amazon Apps and Firefox instead of the whole Google software package? Yes, please.
z0d 8y ago
This will be the death of Android. Thanks to EU bureaucracy. They are fine with Huawei sending data unencrypted to CN servers. Apple charging billions for their closed walled garden. While Google is giving the OS for free, can anyone name one OS with alternative app store which works better than Google platform ? Before anyone jumps about the data mining. How about we talk about the Google dashboard options vs M$ / Apple (draconian idol) / FB or <Any company>. "They will also be able to license Google Play separately from search and chrome, will full freedom to install rival apps" Hogwash. Look at Amazon phones preloaded with bloatware and lockscreen ads and stupid quality fork. Or the MIUI Chinese crap, Huawei local market and how can we forget that VLC banned Huawei for their aggressive background killing ? This puts more corporate companies to turn their rubbish grade services and ruin Android UX further, add more fragmentation due to no Google involvement in the Gplay app Targeting or the security scanning from Gplayprotect. I don't use assistant and all the background services and logging are stopped, search tracking is off, location history is off. I can set the permissions with every app and they stick. Unlike the rubbish iOS asking for each and every app for location for eg - settings needs location for what ? And need of iTunes BS for using the phone itself. And unable to sideload, or basic copying of music ? Add the HW ecosystem lockdown, planned obsolescence with their trash book pros - sealed batteries to the chassis, BGA soldered chips, prone to fail KB, flawed VRMs, Proprietary chips for EC HW from Basic I/O to Encryption. Google is already dying due to the scale of them and trying to being innovative (stocks) and comply with US GOVT (NSA) but this EU incapable of delivering something substantial on the same grounds is relegated to these stupid political policies (controversial Article 13/14). Brainwash of Apple and their walled garden is so fruitful ever, $1Bn no one cards about Android because they think its cheap but the fundamental aspect of offering choice - Bootloader unlock. Running GPL v2 code, Linux kernel, side load, root and tons of control in your hand, no worries Google is already chasing the same path with ChromeOS trash with rehashed Ubuntu/Gentoo running a containerized OS, running Android apps blown up, but ashamed to name Android at the event ! Fuschia OS another MIT license, to make Google sole controller over the OS unlike Android with GPL which enforces the changes to be Open sourced as well unlike the former which doesn't stipulate anything like that, once you make the changes behind the closed source you don't need to push them. Yeah, Slate doesn't have a headphone jack, Pixel 3XL ugly imitation, Android P's downgrade from draw over other apps, killing accessibility APIs hard SDK targeting, closure of the hidden APIs loss of the QS settings in P, aggressive sand boxing like removal of app mah level battery consumption with packages in the name of security. Not just Android. windows too with their WDDM2.x and UWP walled garden over Win32 and 6 Month EOL perpetual alpha mining Guinea pig OS called Win10 Home. Its a shame how massive Apple impacts due to their market cap. Add the Intel BGA push to the mobile laptops from inspired by Apple because until Has well Intel HM class chipsets all had rPGA sockets and MXM GPUs with modular batteries. All is past since Apple started their MacBooks they all used BGA. Kudos to everyone who made this Orwellian era possible, all the Apple fans. Its inevitable that liberty and choice will be drained soon than expected and we will start living in world like the movie "Equilibrium"

203 points by ucaetano 8y ago

ce4 8y ago

Google has used their position to strongarm manufacturers before. Skyhook Wifi Geolocation services was for a short time default on Moto/Samsung. Fearing loss of valuable essid wifi/cell tower scanning data collection, google forced Skyhook out. That was when wifi geolocation was still in its infancy on Android. https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l... Edit: some corrections

GeekyBear 8y ago
Also, Google used their position to keep Android forks from gaining a competitive foothold in the marketplace. >Google allegedly ran afoul of EU rules by deterring manufacturers from using Android forks. Google "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," the commission said. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illegally-used-android-to-dominate-search-must-pay-5b-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illega...
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  As far as I can tell that was a lie. Google allows OEMs to sell devices running "alternative Android versions", but it insists those versions must be fully Android compatible. It prohibits incompatible forks, which to me seems like an extremely good thing which they have relatively few ways of enforcing given the open source nature of Android.
  - olvo 8y ago
    I don't understand what you claim is a lie? I also don't see how effectively subverting the license, presumably including code of outside developers, would make that any less shady.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    You are missing the distinction between AOSP's license and google play services' license. You can do as you wish with AOSP. If you want google play services (which all OEMs do), a whole new set of things kick in.
zmmmmm 8y ago
While I do think that incident was questionable, one relatively minor, fairly ancient incident in 10 years is not really compelling in terms of Google's current practices. If Google is seriously abusing it's market dominance there should be much more serious, larger scale and recent examples than that. The fact that there aren't suggests to me that Google's market abuse here is relatively indirect. Which doesn't make it non-existent, but the idea that Google is exploiting its market dominance in any sort of explicit manner doesn't seem to hold water to me. It is all about the much more subtle question of whether their market offering implicitly results in monopoly abuse because it links their services together through the incentives in the offering.
- ce4 8y ago
  Here's another one where Google forced Acer to comply and stop the launch of an unapproved phone: https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-acer-smartphone-launch-aliyun-android https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-... It's a double edged sword. Of course you want to avoid fragmentation and consumer frustration. But where do you draw a line and call it what it is: monopolistic behaviour that stifles competition.

mtgx 8y ago

Sounds like a good thing for consumers and Android device makers, who will no longer be coerced by Google to install its apps "for free". It's a pretty bad thing for Google in the long term, whose apps will inevitably lose market share. Although some OEMs will initially "freak out" because they'll think people will stop buying their phones if Gmail doesn't come pre-installed (I find it extremely hard to believe, but I guess anything is possible with some people), eventually they'll likely end-up pre-installing Microsoft or Amazon or whoever else' apps instead - and they will get paid to do it.

writepub 8y ago
Many attempts at decoupling Google & Android have failed in the marketplace. Billions have been poured into a viable third mobile OS (Windows phone, meego, tizen, sailfish ...). The consumers have spoken - they want iOS or Google's Android. This is horrible for Europe - where end users will eventually pay more for their preferred 'Google Android'.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > The consumers have spoken - they want iOS or Google's Android. Consumers haven't said shit, nobody asks them. All the general population cares about is that they can buy a phone that can handle calls, texts, and apps for popular services. I miss Windows phone, even though I also hated it. Microsoft had a decent UX paradigm for touch devices, way better than Google and Apple had. But you can't just "lean-startup" yourself into this market using your own brand. They should've waited a year longer, should've used that time to polish the OS instead of releasing a barely-functional version. We could've had a decent competitor with a refreshing mobile experience.
- untog 8y ago
  That's not really true, though. Users never said, for example, that they didn't want Windows Phone. They said that they wanted access to service X, Y and Z or app 1, 2 or 3, and Windows Phone did not provide that access. That isn't consumer rejection so much as consumer reaction to the duopoly they are presented with.
- 8y ago

Mikeb85 8y ago

This is silly. It's a much better experience to use the Google suite of apps on Android than the random shit browsers/email clients/music players/etc... that Samsung, LG and others put on their phones. At the end of the day, Android is open source and anyone is welcome to fork (Amazon)/not use Google apps (Chinese manufacturers in China), this is just handing Apple a massive advantage for being a closed ecosystem and a huge loss for consumers and OEMs.

asr 8y ago
> anyone is welcome to fork This is wrong. One of the three major pieces of this case is the allegation that Google has hindered those who wish to fork by preventing them from making phones with any of the major phone OEMs: "In particular, Google ... 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')." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  They can fork if they don't want to pre-install Google apps. Lots of Chinese phones have alternative app stores.
  - asr 8y ago
    No, until now, you were not allowed to fork just because you agreed not to install Google apps on that phone -- you were only allowed to fork if you didn't want to install Google apps on any phone you made. So, for example, Samsung couldn't decide to offer an Android phone without Google unless it was willing to shut down its entire current business. The allegation is that because of this, anyone looking to fork Android had a very hard time finding good OEMs to make their phones. E.g., maybe the Amazon fire phones would have worked if they could have gotten a Tier 1 OEM to make the phones so they could have put out a better product. But nobody would agree to stop making all of their current Android phones to see (I assume; there is no public version of the decision yet so I'm making up the example).

Urgo 8y ago

So let me get this.. Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to do anything and you need to use their app store but they're totally fine here. Good job Europe.

tzs 8y ago
It's hard to commit antitrust violations in your dealings with yourself. What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Google draws scrutiny from antitrust regulators in regard to phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers.
- islanderfun 8y ago
  This is very interesting POV. Thinking out loud, if Micrsoft made their own PCs from the beginning and got as big as it did, would they have had the same problems? > phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers What if pixel phones become the only way to use Android? These are just semi-rhetorical (and unlikely scenarios) questions.
- dirkgently 8y ago
  > What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Yes, why not? Or that rule only applies to Google?
  - tzs 8y ago
    That "rule" doesn't apply to anyone. Google is not in trouble for making their own operating system and store and using them on their own phone. They are getting in trouble for the way they try to get other phones to include Google's store. With Apple the OS maker, the store maker, and the phone maker are all the same entity so it doesn't even make sense to say that the OS vendor is trying to force their store on the phone vendor. If Apple draws antitrust scrutiny, it will be for something different that what is drawing attention to Google, such as for not letting third party stores on their phone.

rahimnathwani 8y ago

"By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors." This is some sloppy reporting. The 'Android operating system' is licensed under the Apache 2.0 licence[0]. Nothing in that licence obligates handset manufacturers to 'load the free apps'. [0] https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses

dannyr 8y ago
Google makes separate agreements with device manufacturers. That's what the article is referring too.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dahfizz 8y ago
  Can you expand on this? There is nothing stopping a manufacturer from putting "pure" android on their devices. The reason they freely choose to bundle G apps is because the G apps enhance the final product.
  - kryptiskt 8y ago
    They ship Google apps because they must do so to be able to put in Google Play. That's not freely chosen.
    - dahfizz 8y ago
      But they don't need Google Play Services either. They choose to bundle it in because it makes their phones better.
      - hadrien01 8y ago
        They choose to bundle Google Play. Because if you don't have it (with Facebook, and Twitter, and Snapchat, and other essential apps for many people), your device won't sell. But to get the Google Play store, you also need to include Google Play services, Google Play Music, YouTube, Chrome, Google Maps, Location Services, Google Keep, Google Docs, other stores (Movies, NewsStand, Books), etc. This ruling finally forces Google to decouple at least some of its apps from the package, and to sell some devices (but not all of them) with or without Google apps.

394549 8y ago

> By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors. It sounds like a very good thing to me to prevent companies like Google from having such terms, which allow them to use dominance on one area to fuel dominance in many others. Each product should stand on it's own, and the idea that the entire ecosystem is one big product is frankly BS.

jackconnor 8y ago

Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU. I guess there are at least a few companies that will be happy to use Android without Google, but my guess is for the rest this is just more bottom line money out of their pocket going straight to Google. Was this what they were going for?

distances 8y ago
> Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU. I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. This seems rational to me, and in line with the antitrust decision as the bundling of apps isn't any more mandatory for manufacturers.
- jackconnor 8y ago
  I'm saying the premise as a whole backfired. I assume the end goal was to benefit end consumers. Now, end consumers will have to pay more for something that was previously free, since my gut says that most device companies will choose to pay the licensing agreement and just pass the costs along by increasing the sticker price.
  - IanCal 8y ago
    If there's an actual cost to the items it now means other providers could actually compete, which is the goal. It would now be possible to sell cheaper than Google if you can make something the consumer wants at a lower cost. Competition benefits consumers. More importantly was that Google were doing various forced things (like requiring installing all Google things on all devices, heavily limiting possible competition). Ending that is important, even if it shifts costs around. Edit - a simple way of viewing this is if this makes more money for Google, why weren't they doing it anyway? If not, can it really be costing consumers more?
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > I assume the end goal was to benefit end consumers I wouldn't assume this. In simple terms, surely they realized punitive measures on a something consumers choose will harm the chooser. They might have some idealistic long-term consumer benefit goal in mind (e.g. magically growing competitors, magic corporate altruism, etc), but it is divorced from reality.

gandalfian 8y ago

Are we sure it isn't the other way around? You will be able to pay for permission to NOT install Google apps?

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

This is fantastic. By placing a cost on Google Apps, competitors have a viable place to provide an alternative offer at a lower price. This is exactly the sort of change we need here in the US as well. Mission success in Europe. Probably the biggest question I have is that they still appear to be selling "bundles" according to the article, which seems contrary to the European decision. Is a phone manufacturer who licenses "the bundle" allowed to omit apps from the bundles? Or have the bundles been narrowly defined around the EU's current ruling of which bundles aren't allowed, and they're still going to force OEMs to carry specific sets of Google apps?

c8g 8y ago
>“Android phone makers wishing to distribute Google apps may now also build noncompatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets” in Europe, Google said in a statement. “They will also be able to license Google Play separately from Search and Chrome, with full freedom to install rival apps as before.”

thrillgore 8y ago

They'll pass the price on to their consumers, or make their own stand-ins.

glenrivard 8y ago

The EU consumer ends up losing.

hadrien01 8y ago

> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companies wanting to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser, allowing handset makers to partner with rival services. Still not decoupled enough for my taste. Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. They also don't say anything about decoupling and shrinking the hundreds of megabytes of mandatory Google Play services constantly tracking you. (for example: will you still be mandated to make all Location Services go through Google if you want Google Play on your phone?)

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. Bear in mind, the apps Google's trying to force install are primarily Search and Chrome, which Google says they'll offer a "financial incentive" for OEMs to include. So more than likely, they'll pay OEMs to install Chrome and Search, and OEMs can cover the cost of licensing the others with it. So a wash for companies still shipping all Google apps. But OEMs can choose not to include some of Google's other pack-ins, and say, Firefox and DuckDuckGo, or Microsoft with Bing and Edge could make a competing bid to be the preinstalled search and browser, to provide revenue with which the OEM could then buy the license for the Play Store. So this will probably be cost-neutral for phones packed with the status quo, but offers the chance for third parties to outbid Google on search and browser, or undercut Google's costs for their other apps, and OEMs will be able to leave Google's apps out of the image if they prefer to ship their own, like Samsung often does.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "I suspect a manufacturer who licenses the Play/Gmail/YouTube/Maps bundle can pick and choose what they include, they just have to "buy" all of it. " That's still a huge issue. I shouldn't have to pay for Google Books if I don't want to include it on my device.
beaner 8y ago
> Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store. Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube. Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products. By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.

bubblethink 8y ago

This doesn't change the end result too much in the traditional Android ecosystem because nothing changes on the engineering side of things. You still need a system level play services blob to run most common android apps. And this doesn't change that. However, what's interesting is that if the non-compete exclusivity clause has been overruled, someone like Samsung can launch phones with their play services equivalent, or someone like Amazon or Microsoft can get more manufacturers to build phones with their play services equivalent. Any of these should theoretically reduce the reliance on play services.

pkaye 8y ago
Now they need to make Apple do.the same with their app store.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Unrelated and a bit whataboutist, but if the rules are triggered at a certain market share, Apple will price themselves as necessary to remain under that share.

gimmeThaBeet 8y ago

This has always felt very bizarre to me. From an anti-competitive standpoint it makes sense, but from an antitrust i.e. harming the consumer standpoint, it feels a bit nebulous. Who is actually the beneficiary of this action? It seems pretty dubious that it helps customers, after all, the whole thing stems from the fact that the customers want the Play Store. It says that they would offer would be financial incentives for partnering with chrome and google. Is it just gonna be like "access to Google Play is $10, but if you bundle our services, we'll give you $10!" Or is the effect that it increases the leverage of other handset makers to essentially extract rents of digital real estate from Google like Apple does?

GeekyBear 8y ago
The EU doesn't have American style antitrust law that only kicks in and places restrictions on allowable behavior when you have a large enough monopoly. The EU has competition law that places restrictions on how you can behave as soon as you have a 40% share of a given market. Under EU competition law, once you have that 40% market share in one area, you may not use that market share as a weapon against competitors in other areas.
- gowld 8y ago
  As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number.
  - GeekyBear 8y ago
    >As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number. The intent is different too. The EU is looking to protect a healthy level of competition in the marketplace, while we in the US have moved the goalposts to "can you prove this particular monopoly is doing consumers harm"?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago

butz 8y ago

Who needs app stores anyway? Let's build progressive web apps and target all platforms.

kitten_mittens_ 8y ago
Aren’t PWAs only supported on Google’s very own browser?

RaleyField 8y ago

Good news, everyone! I never wanted them. It would be swell if they could also start charging for syncing functionality and google account integration.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

MarkMc 8y ago

I don't understand why Google are doing this. I thought the EU imposed that huge fine because Google had a clause in their contract with handset manufacturers that said, "If you want Play Services, you cannot sell a forked version of Android". Why can't Google simply remove this clause?

mankash666 8y ago
Because Google is not a non-profit. They'd like to monetize their OS and services.
wmf 8y ago
They did remove it. I don't know if unbundling Chrome was forced by the EU but it's consistent with EU principles.
AnssiH 8y ago
There were three separate issues, and they have now been addressed by Google: 1. App bundling. 2. Selling Android forks. 3. Payments for exclusive installation of Google Search. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/complying-ecs-android-decision/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/compl...
aviraldg 8y ago
Sure, and while they're at it they may as well shut down the Play Store as well, because app developers won't be able to deal with it. Try explaining why your app doesn't work to thousands of users with terrible Chinese phones with all kinds of API incompatibilities.

MarkMc 8y ago

So Google will charge Samsung $1,000 per handset for Play Services, but then pay Samsung $1,000 to have Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, etc pre-installed. Result: Google meets its legal obligations to unbundle their software but in practice the handset manufacturers don't have a choice.

andun 8y ago
Yes, they will have the choice of also selling Android handsets without Play Services, which before they couldn't do.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  This. Samsung has already done deals with Microsoft and Dropbox previously to pre-load their services on some Samsung phones. Imagine if you could buy a "Windows" Android, with Office 365 + bing preloaded and optimized like a Windows Phone 2.0 sold next to a Google Android phone. As a consumer, I love having that type of option, and the manufacturer can also add their own software / services.
  - atomi 8y ago
    You lost me at preloaded.
  - makomk 8y ago
    Historically speaking, if I remember correctly, Microsoft has paid phone manufacturers and cell networks to set Bing as the search engine on their smartphones and completely disable the ability for users to change it. I reckon a large part of the reason Google ended up paying to set their search engine as the default on mobile is because otherwise many users would have to jump through hoops every time they searched just to use it. If this goes through, you will use Bing for searches on mobile and you will like it.
AnssiH 8y ago
Nope: > The decision also requires Google to refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect as these practices. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

qwerty456127 8y ago

I hope this is going to help to attract more attention to competing services. The only Google thing that I don't know of a good alternative to (at least because it already has so much valuable content uploaded) is YouTube. Monopolies are evil.

kmlx 8y ago
Respectfully I disagree. Monopolies are good, they create lasting value (see google). All companies should strive to build monopolies and own their market. Peter Thiel - 0 to 1
- qwerty456127 8y ago
  IMHO they should strive to by means of fair practices (that don't include using their dominant positions to suppers competition or use their wealth to buy-and-close other companies) but should never achieve that.

tannhaeuser 8y ago

Fantastic. Can I have my Samsung phone retroactively switched to a Google-free O/S, with the option to install Maps and maybe a couple other services? I'd even pay extra for it.

dna_polymerase 8y ago
Like LineageOS + Micro G? Yes, that's possible. Requires some work though.

Animats 8y ago

Cool. Does this mean Android phones will run properly without any Google services?

alienreborn 8y ago

3 Choices for OEMS: - ASOP Vanilla or their forked version [Free] - Include Play Store and Google Services [Pay up] - Add-on Chrome with Google Search on top of Play Store [Free] Prices of flagship phones are already higher than they are in US, now they will be increased again.

anowlcalledjosh 8y ago
Is this speculation, or sourced? The article seems to contradict you: > Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for companies that want to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser, allowing handset makers to team up with rival services. The company did not say how much it would charge for the licenses.
- alienreborn 8y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-licensing-bundle-chrome-search https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro...

beerlord 8y ago

What is the commercial motivation of Google to maintain AOSP now? They are just enabling their 'competitors'.

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago

If any phone makers actually have the courage to try to bootstrap a new non-google ecosystem, bravo to you.

jraph 8y ago

Well, too bad, this means that as a customer, I'll probably have to pay for something I go out of my way to get rid of if I ever buy a new Android phone. I hope there will be some way to get a refund like when not accepting Windows licenses on computers.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yAnonymous 8y ago

This is actually a good chance for alternative app stores, because that and the browser are the only essential software you'd be missing from the package, and the browser can be replaced for free. I hope we see Google Play vanish. Their pricing and the way it's ran are cancerous. Competition would be good, even if it's from Amazon or another major company. Phones with Amazon Apps and Firefox instead of the whole Google software package? Yes, please.

z0d 8y ago

This will be the death of Android. Thanks to EU bureaucracy. They are fine with Huawei sending data unencrypted to CN servers. Apple charging billions for their closed walled garden. While Google is giving the OS for free, can anyone name one OS with alternative app store which works better than Google platform ? Before anyone jumps about the data mining. How about we talk about the Google dashboard options vs M$ / Apple (draconian idol) / FB or <Any company>. "They will also be able to license Google Play separately from search and chrome, will full freedom to install rival apps" Hogwash. Look at Amazon phones preloaded with bloatware and lockscreen ads and stupid quality fork. Or the MIUI Chinese crap, Huawei local market and how can we forget that VLC banned Huawei for their aggressive background killing ? This puts more corporate companies to turn their rubbish grade services and ruin Android UX further, add more fragmentation due to no Google involvement in the Gplay app Targeting or the security scanning from Gplayprotect. I don't use assistant and all the background services and logging are stopped, search tracking is off, location history is off. I can set the permissions with every app and they stick. Unlike the rubbish iOS asking for each and every app for location for eg - settings needs location for what ? And need of iTunes BS for using the phone itself. And unable to sideload, or basic copying of music ? Add the HW ecosystem lockdown, planned obsolescence with their trash book pros - sealed batteries to the chassis, BGA soldered chips, prone to fail KB, flawed VRMs, Proprietary chips for EC HW from Basic I/O to Encryption. Google is already dying due to the scale of them and trying to being innovative (stocks) and comply with US GOVT (NSA) but this EU incapable of delivering something substantial on the same grounds is relegated to these stupid political policies (controversial Article 13/14). Brainwash of Apple and their walled garden is so fruitful ever, $1Bn no one cards about Android because they think its cheap but the fundamental aspect of offering choice - Bootloader unlock. Running GPL v2 code, Linux kernel, side load, root and tons of control in your hand, no worries Google is already chasing the same path with ChromeOS trash with rehashed Ubuntu/Gentoo running a containerized OS, running Android apps blown up, but ashamed to name Android at the event ! Fuschia OS another MIT license, to make Google sole controller over the OS unlike Android with GPL which enforces the changes to be Open sourced as well unlike the former which doesn't stipulate anything like that, once you make the changes behind the closed source you don't need to push them. Yeah, Slate doesn't have a headphone jack, Pixel 3XL ugly imitation, Android P's downgrade from draw over other apps, killing accessibility APIs hard SDK targeting, closure of the hidden APIs loss of the QS settings in P, aggressive sand boxing like removal of app mah level battery consumption with packages in the name of security. Not just Android. windows too with their WDDM2.x and UWP walled garden over Win32 and 6 Month EOL perpetual alpha mining Guinea pig OS called Win10 Home. Its a shame how massive Apple impacts due to their market cap. Add the Intel BGA push to the mobile laptops from inspired by Apple because until Has well Intel HM class chipsets all had rPGA sockets and MXM GPUs with modular batteries. All is past since Apple started their MacBooks they all used BGA. Kudos to everyone who made this Orwellian era possible, all the Apple fans. Its inevitable that liberty and choice will be drained soon than expected and we will start living in world like the movie "Equilibrium"