5 ms·

I can't fathom why Google is named in this, but not Apple? Android can be released with whatever software you want on it... see chinese phones, or the kindles.

I can't fathom why Google is named in this, but not Apple? Android can be released with whatever software you want on it... see chinese phones, or the kindles... You just cant bundle it with google services or play store if you also try to bundle third party services. Its a choice, not a forced decision, and users can install those later if they want. On iOS, apple tells you what you can install, how it can be used, and they can change those rules on a whim and destroy businesses - and a core value of their app ecosystem is that you are not allowed to create apps that compete with them, see the new removal of Pebble apps since the release of the Apple Watch.... The EU is backwards as hell...

hahainternet 11y ago
As far as I can tell. Google's only current issue is Search. This is just a Wired clickbait article by the sounds of things.
- IBM 11y ago
  The EU is investigating Android as well.
- eco 11y ago
  In the article it states the EU announced they were investigating Android in addition to the Google Search investigation they've been doing for some time. I think the article does a pretty good job of describing the context for the Android investigation announcement.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lambdasquirrel 11y ago
Probably because Apple doesn't care to get its stuff on Android, whereas all those other companies do. Apple probably wants Android to be the way it is–owned by Google. If Google is forced to open up, then they might too.
MBCook 11y ago
I think the argument is that Apple's software isn't available to anyone so it only effects Apple's phones. On the other hand by giving Android away from free Google pushed all other mobile OSes out of the market. Why develop your own for hundreds of millions of $ when Google has one you can use, developed faster than you can, with more features and apps. Basically, Google dumped their product at a price point no one else could compete with and strangled out Palm, WinMo, Symbian, etc. taking over the non-Apple smartphone OS market. (ignoring mismanagement that may/did happen at those companies).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cwyers 11y ago
  It also helped kill off cross-platform app solutions, like Java Micro Edition and Qualcomm BREW. (BTW, this is one of the big bones of contention between Oracle and Google -- Google used Java to help build Android, but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps.)
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps "in such a way" like just using Java Standard Edition?
    - cwyers 11y ago
      Android's implementation of Java is a subset of Java SE, not the whole thing: http://www.zdnet.com/article/java-vs-android-apis/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/java-vs-android-apis/
      - Oletros 11y ago
        Java SE is incompatible with Java ME, hence the OP comment
nkassis 11y ago
My understanding is Google also blocks hardware vendors from working with alternative android based OSes. They accomplish this by threatening the hardware vendors with not licensing Google's android version with Google's apps if they release another android phone with say Kindle OS. That seems to fall under anti-trust behavior to me. (I'm not a legal expert). Using your strength in one market (search, email, youtube...) gain and protect market share in another (Mobile OS).
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Is that really the case? HTC is releasing Nexus devices and Windows phone at the same time, and they also released the "Facebook phone." I can't imagine they'd be jeopardizing their Android business over Windows phone or FB Home if that were a real concern.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Windows Phone isn't covered by the deal, which only extends to forks of AOSP, not wholly different mobile OSes. The Facbook Phone, IIRC, was just Android with the Facebook launcher in place of the default Launcher, the underlying OS was still Google's approved version of Android.
  - tashoecraft 11y ago
    I'm no expert on this, but from what I remember, if you produce an android phone running normal stock android, then you cannot make another phone and fork the OS. So while HTC can make Nexus and windows phones, they cannot make Nexus and their own phone running their own port of android that ditches all of Googles apps. It's Googles way of locking Hardware manufactures in and preventing competition. Hence lawsuits.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      I thought Facebook Home was more invasive than it apparently is.
    - AJ007 11y ago
Spooky23 11y ago
I think the counterpoint is that since Google controls Android, their slow move to a model where the other parties in the Google ecosystem are compelled to adopt Google services vs. whatever services they want to provide. The Apple model is different. They live or die on the full platform. If Apple fails to execute, people leave the platform. They don't compel the behavior of other parties in the market.
pjmlp 11y ago
Whatever Apple forbids in their devices doesn't matter under market laws, as long as, their market share keeps under a certain threshold. Currently Apple's market share in Europe is insignificant when compared with Android's. HN complains in that regard always miss the way market laws work.
- myko 11y ago
  Yet I bet iOS still makes a lot more money than Android even in Europe. Market share doesn't mean anything if the money isn't there.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Given that there are countries (eastern europe) where there are hardly seen, I doubt. Profit is not only sold Apps. The companies selling handsets also might be quite happy with Android's share. As for the overall Apps, unless one fits into the top 1% apps, there is hardly any money to be made. The real winners of app markets are the consultant companies doing apps on requests, trainings, certifications and all those companies selling multi-platform programming solutions.
colechristensen 11y ago
The stuff with Pebble does seem obviously anticompetitive. Besides that here's the difference: Apple's hardware and software are exclusive to each other. Google is being accused of interacting with hardware manufacturers in an anticompetitive way, in nearly an identical fashion to how Microsoft interacted with hardware manufacturers leading to their anti-trust loss. The GMail app is the new Internet Explorer. You can't get the GMail app through proper channels unless your phone manufacturer play's Googles game to their liking. Likewise phone manufacturers aren't free to sell the phones as they want, they either lose out on market-dominating Google applications or lose on their freedom of choice. The difference between this and Apple is that there are huge complicated business deals between Google and hardware manufacturers. Apple app store kicking out or modifying the behavior of apps can be seen as anticompetitive, but it is fundamentally different. Apple is deciding what to sell in their store in an anticompetitive way, Google is controlling it's buyers in an anticompetitive way. The second is seen as generally worse. Microsoft, by the way, has a big hand in pushing this.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Google and Apple are in very different markets, for the purposes of this sort of investigation. We often think of Apple and Google as direct competitors because they are the ultimate owners of their software platforms. But the structures of their mobile businesses are largely mirror opposites: Google sells software to companys that make phone hardware. They are a supplier. Apple makes software and buys phone hardware from other companies. They are a purchaser.

hahainternet 11y ago

As far as I can tell. Google's only current issue is Search. This is just a Wired clickbait article by the sounds of things.

IBM 11y ago
The EU is investigating Android as well.
eco 11y ago
In the article it states the EU announced they were investigating Android in addition to the Google Search investigation they've been doing for some time. I think the article does a pretty good job of describing the context for the Android investigation announcement.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lambdasquirrel 11y ago

Probably because Apple doesn't care to get its stuff on Android, whereas all those other companies do. Apple probably wants Android to be the way it is–owned by Google. If Google is forced to open up, then they might too.

MBCook 11y ago

I think the argument is that Apple's software isn't available to anyone so it only effects Apple's phones. On the other hand by giving Android away from free Google pushed all other mobile OSes out of the market. Why develop your own for hundreds of millions of $ when Google has one you can use, developed faster than you can, with more features and apps. Basically, Google dumped their product at a price point no one else could compete with and strangled out Palm, WinMo, Symbian, etc. taking over the non-Apple smartphone OS market. (ignoring mismanagement that may/did happen at those companies).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cwyers 11y ago
It also helped kill off cross-platform app solutions, like Java Micro Edition and Qualcomm BREW. (BTW, this is one of the big bones of contention between Oracle and Google -- Google used Java to help build Android, but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps.)
- magicalist 11y ago
  > but did so in such a way as to make their apps incompatible with J2ME apps "in such a way" like just using Java Standard Edition?
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Android's implementation of Java is a subset of Java SE, not the whole thing: http://www.zdnet.com/article/java-vs-android-apis/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/java-vs-android-apis/
    - Oletros 11y ago
      Java SE is incompatible with Java ME, hence the OP comment

nkassis 11y ago

My understanding is Google also blocks hardware vendors from working with alternative android based OSes. They accomplish this by threatening the hardware vendors with not licensing Google's android version with Google's apps if they release another android phone with say Kindle OS. That seems to fall under anti-trust behavior to me. (I'm not a legal expert). Using your strength in one market (search, email, youtube...) gain and protect market share in another (Mobile OS).

emodendroket 11y ago
Is that really the case? HTC is releasing Nexus devices and Windows phone at the same time, and they also released the "Facebook phone." I can't imagine they'd be jeopardizing their Android business over Windows phone or FB Home if that were a real concern.
- cwyers 11y ago
  Windows Phone isn't covered by the deal, which only extends to forks of AOSP, not wholly different mobile OSes. The Facbook Phone, IIRC, was just Android with the Facebook launcher in place of the default Launcher, the underlying OS was still Google's approved version of Android.
- tashoecraft 11y ago
  I'm no expert on this, but from what I remember, if you produce an android phone running normal stock android, then you cannot make another phone and fork the OS. So while HTC can make Nexus and windows phones, they cannot make Nexus and their own phone running their own port of android that ditches all of Googles apps. It's Googles way of locking Hardware manufactures in and preventing competition. Hence lawsuits.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    I thought Facebook Home was more invasive than it apparently is.
  - AJ007 11y ago

Spooky23 11y ago

I think the counterpoint is that since Google controls Android, their slow move to a model where the other parties in the Google ecosystem are compelled to adopt Google services vs. whatever services they want to provide. The Apple model is different. They live or die on the full platform. If Apple fails to execute, people leave the platform. They don't compel the behavior of other parties in the market.

pjmlp 11y ago

Whatever Apple forbids in their devices doesn't matter under market laws, as long as, their market share keeps under a certain threshold. Currently Apple's market share in Europe is insignificant when compared with Android's. HN complains in that regard always miss the way market laws work.

myko 11y ago
Yet I bet iOS still makes a lot more money than Android even in Europe. Market share doesn't mean anything if the money isn't there.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Given that there are countries (eastern europe) where there are hardly seen, I doubt. Profit is not only sold Apps. The companies selling handsets also might be quite happy with Android's share. As for the overall Apps, unless one fits into the top 1% apps, there is hardly any money to be made. The real winners of app markets are the consultant companies doing apps on requests, trainings, certifications and all those companies selling multi-platform programming solutions.

colechristensen 11y ago

The stuff with Pebble does seem obviously anticompetitive. Besides that here's the difference: Apple's hardware and software are exclusive to each other. Google is being accused of interacting with hardware manufacturers in an anticompetitive way, in nearly an identical fashion to how Microsoft interacted with hardware manufacturers leading to their anti-trust loss. The GMail app is the new Internet Explorer. You can't get the GMail app through proper channels unless your phone manufacturer play's Googles game to their liking. Likewise phone manufacturers aren't free to sell the phones as they want, they either lose out on market-dominating Google applications or lose on their freedom of choice. The difference between this and Apple is that there are huge complicated business deals between Google and hardware manufacturers. Apple app store kicking out or modifying the behavior of apps can be seen as anticompetitive, but it is fundamentally different. Apple is deciding what to sell in their store in an anticompetitive way, Google is controlling it's buyers in an anticompetitive way. The second is seen as generally worse. Microsoft, by the way, has a big hand in pushing this.

snowwrestler 11y ago

Google and Apple are in very different markets, for the purposes of this sort of investigation. We often think of Apple and Google as direct competitors because they are the ultimate owners of their software platforms. But the structures of their mobile businesses are largely mirror opposites: Google sells software to companys that make phone hardware. They are a supplier. Apple makes software and buys phone hardware from other companies. They are a purchaser.