Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows.
I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device?
Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.
By creating an incentive for Google (and other corporations) not to do it again.
I am really glad that EU did this, been waiting years for this to happen. Other fines will surly come. You can’t eat and kill your competition too long before someone starts to sett the records straight.
A happy day for us consumers!
Contrary to numerous posts-
-no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous.
-the fine is enormous. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Over 6 years Google spent a grand total of $1.1B in all expenses for Waymo, for instance. $5B is an enormous, enormous amount of money for any company.
I highly doubt this will be a "pay it and forget it" fine, but is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning.
>Article 102
>Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
>Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
>b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers
>d)making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts
Ok, so, Google said "You can't use Google Play unless you force users to have Google Search installed".
How is that not clearly breaching d?
Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks."
How is that not clearly breaching b?
>but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous
They've had at least two years notice, so could have reduced their fine by complying when they were first warned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The article literally warns about the exact things they're still doing.
They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other.
And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a consumer.
The same is true of the other claim-
Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks."
Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android and cause consumer confusion.
This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much.
As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely dwarfed it. When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.
I can already see headlines bashing the EU though.
- Google had an operating income of 32.9 billion in 2017 [0]. $5B fine for anti-trust practices is 15.2% (5 / 32.9) of that. - HSBC had an operating income of 63.8 billion in 2017 [1]. In 2017, HSBC suffered a $1.9B fine for _willfully_ relaxing it's anti-money laundering filters in order to profit from the illegal drug industry, regimes that are embargoed, and entities or individuals who are suspected of financing terrorism [2]. That's a 1.9 / 63.8 = 0.29% fine for helping finance murderers.
That puts the Google fine into perspective, but it probably says more about the HSBC case than it does about Google's.
It should be noted that HSBC broke a deal to avoid prosecution, thanks to then Attorney General Eric Holder who overruled prosecutors' recommendation to pursue criminal charges. As part of the deal, HSBC confessed to above allegations, which was just a theory at the time.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/513129/operating-income-... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/258399/total-operating-i... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...
EU treaty article 102 is about as clear as it gets. Google even had precedence to look at. And finally, they were warned by the EU commission more than 2 years ago but chose not to comply. This is a company with hundreds of lawyers on staff, and with the best law firms on retainer.
The fine is huge, but it's a small fraction of their revenue. This fine is measured based on guidelines that have been the same for more than a decade: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52...
I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
Don't think trade wars applies. The reasons were given and I think they are correct. Personally I'm glad that the EU has the power to (at least a bit) influence such huge corporations.
The case started in 2015. So Google had enough time to appeal and provide info to regulators. So, it wasn't a surprise. Yes the law might not be clear but I think the deliberations took time because of the same reason. If laws were clearer Google fines might have happened back in 2015.
Why? It's meant to be a meaningful penalty that shareholders will feel in their pockets. If fines are just a small cost of doing business, all the evidence is that firms shrug and pay them, because the producer surplus they reap is usually much larger than the fine.
I think that this is already a counter-attack of "dieselgate".
Well , judges had a look and decided it was
Thats funny you think Apple doesnt have bad practices... They are seemingly the worst when it comes to IP and giving customers and developers what they want.
actually, 2017 google made $110B so its not 1/4 but 1/22 of their profits last year.. enormous? meh.
If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah blah, but in the end it's really about whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not. Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. Success only has downsides versus Apple's model. I expect the next major player here will either sell the operating system or sell the phones, and keep the other stuff closed
So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not".
Regarding open source, Android v1 was an underpowered and underfeatured newcomer in a market dominated by Symbian and Blackberry where Windows was at a few percent and iOS was making inroads.
There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. Let's not rewrite history and make it look like Android was a clear winner from the beginning, back then even iPhone was pretty crap, and Android was that times two.
Would you mind rephrasing it a bit, and i'd be happy to try to respond?
I can't see why anyone would ever not follow Apple's model. It effectively immunizes them from antitrust concerns due to low market share, but they still make an ungodly amount of money.
What does Google's model buy them, precisely?
It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0].
Remember, the context surrounding the need for Android to use an open source model at launch was that they were the underdog, iOS was still nascent but steadily gaining serious market share. The incumbents -- whom Google was hoping to disrupt using the OHA as a trojan horse was Nokia (they enjoyed 73% market share [1] with their Symbian "smartphone" OS) and Blackberry. Nokia would eventually start the process to make Symbian fully open source in 2008 [2], so they could compete better against the OHA [3], but the process didn't complete until 2010[4], which by then was already too late.
IOW, making Android open source was a core part of Google's strategic play to gain market share, there is no point in crying uncle.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_compe...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-c...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation
[4] https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-o...
This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used.
In fact, the business folks mostly thought it would be a downside (given all the FUD/etc around the time period).
Your perspective is also interesting because Apple did not go this route and still were wildly successful. So i disagree it "had to be open source or it would not have taken off". I'd like to believe that (really!), but there is an existence proof that this was not true (Apple), and in the end, i just can't bring myself to think what you say is true.
It was open because Andy thought it was best for the world (really. I realize how cliche that sounds, but if you've ever met the guy, you'd realize it was true. He gave pretty much not a shit about the business side of it, it's not what he enjoyed).
As mentioned, the business folks argued that this model would just lead to a shitty experience (among other things) over time. (This was pre-iphone, so apple was not a consideration at the time).
The compromise was "great, let's figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen through branding guidelines/etc".
Later, after Apple was successful, the business folks all said "look, this model was a mistake, look at Apple". You could still push back and say "we are doing fine".
I don't see how, in the future, the business folks don't win every argument here.
Apple's model is giving them all the money, with none of the downsides.
This seems like a "business school case study" they would teach in the future.
Yes, it payed off in marketshare, but severely limited the profitability of Android and being another major revenue stream for Google. I hope this decision makes them think twice about their strategy for Fuchsia because they seem to be using the Android model all over again. Google really needs to start operating like Apple for better or worse.
These days I actually feel more comfortable when things aren't free. It means the company's motives aren't (completely) obfuscated.
'open' and 'control' are hard to reconcile.
Excellent development! These platforms weren't "open" in the first place, just pretending to be, so I don't see the problem.
The Android growth phase has been incredibly lucrative for Google (and Microsoft, via patents). Have no doubt they'd try it again today.
And the justice system in the EU is different than in the US. It doesn't mean the next one will be the same.
Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world. Thank you EU.
So all in all, the US internet companies are the pinnacle of globalist creation, or the biggest beneficiaries of such policy, and in the looming protectionist era, they will become the first sacrifice.
It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?
> The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e...
> How is it any different
Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device makers.
They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”.
As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place, but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.
Android being an open source OS is nowhere near as easy to install as a regular linux open source OS.
I've been trying to get my own android / androidTV box working on popular hardware like rPi and other Amlogic, Allwinner, Mali based boards without much success. Even devices manufacturers have troubles with the same (talking about SBCs here).
Android is open source only for name sake. Google's deliberate control over the entire Android ecosystem is undeniable.
Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine.
I just don't understand the logic of this at all.
Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere.
Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
That's the issue though. It seems that Google is being punished for being somewhat willing to work with other makers.
Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, and A11 based computers.
In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:
- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
Not sure if the same licensing also applies to Google Play Services - if yes, this might make it difficult to even run the apps without getting the license, no matter which store is used.
1. They should release a heavily locked-down version of Android, which manufacturers and carriers cannot modify - apart from basics like bundled apps, widgets and wallpapers (uninstallable). Update would come direct from Google, and hardware support would be limited to specific components.
2. Make all of Android closed source and shut down AOSP. What is the point of it anyway?
This would solve the fragmentation problem, and be better for consumers since they would get updates quicker and for a longer time. Paradoxically it would lead to less 'choice' for consumers.
The fact is that Apple controls enough of the users that everybody wants that they have at least as much influence as Google does in mobile. That they've chosen to protect their fat profit margins and accumulate the largest pile of corporate cash in history while ignoring customers that can't afford premium devices should not insulate them from similar scrutiny.
If the EU wants to preserve any credibility on these issues they should take a hard look at Apple's refusal to allow other browser engines on iOS.
>requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
>preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
>giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
It's the other way around. EU is building credibility that seems to be lacking elsewhere by penalizing anti-competitive behavior.
Apple is incapable of abusing manufacturers as Apple does not work with manufacturers at all. The entire discussion simply does not apply to Apple.
Google monopoly has very little to do with Chrome bundling and a lot with hardware being kept tight closed to kill any competition: the day we have OSS drivers is the day we can have other OSes (which have been already written) fully working; that will allow also software to be fully usable, creating more competition Google will have to respond to, hopefully with more openness and quality.
Before someone replies that drivers have nothing to do with browser bundling, think about how could Google force you to install anything or use any of their services if your underlying OS and surrounding environment didn't depend on anything from them because it wasn't even Android. Example: https://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
The fact those parts are closed hasn't stopped people releasing custom ROMs. Google and Sony even help you do this.
https://developers.google.com/android/drivers https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/
Microsoft got into trouble because they forced companies like Dell and HP to make their products feature Internet Explorer.
Google is getting into trouble now because they're forcing companies like Samsung and LG to make their products feature Chrome.
Apple is not getting into trouble now because Apple is not forcing Apple to make their products feature Safari. Obviously iOS does feature Safari, but Apple was free to make that choice. There is no OEM here being bullied.
Right, only the end users are harmed, as it should be.
Apple does not have a dominant market position and does not give away iOS for free.
Making Android free is an anti-competitive practice because it inhibits the formation of a competitive market for mobile phone operating systems. Because Google's practice of making Android free inhibits competition they are not allowed to exploit the lack of competition for profit.
Where is the problem with making Android free?
- 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").
It's not. Be Patient.
All we have left is Apple and the most expensive, proprietary and locked down platform in computing history. A single gatekeeper effectively controls the app space. Safari dictates what happens on the web. Who wins here except for the company that's already the richest in history?
Or, more likely, the EU keeps going down this road and tech companies eventually start treating it like the backward nanny state it is and wall it off.
It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.
Its the exact same evil business practicr Microsoft did in the 90s, surprising Google got away with it that long. But also Microsoft wasn't fined until something like 10 years later...
>The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google’s suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators—it’s of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.[1]
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
In your fantasy scenario you didn't consider that the current version(s) of Android running on billions of devices are mostly open source, and there's nothing preventing Samsung, or Samsung + Sony + whoever to take that, combine it with one of the other existing app store and GApps replacement apps (Firefox, some maps e.g. Nokia, etc) and continuing like nothing happened. What are the Android app developers going to do, say "oh well" and settle for their market share shrinking to almost nothing which is what the Pixel amounts to? No, they will publish on the new Samsung app store.
And life moves on. Perhaps Jolla gets a boost, or we see a new or old player try something new.
There is no scenario where Apple becomes a big scary monopoly that wins everything. That's what Google is, and that's why they're being fined.
I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share, but to me this practice seems far more anti-competitive. Banning competitors seems worse than fully allowing competitors but providing your own as default that can easily be changed.
Do tell how one could switch out the map from Google Maps to anything else (Bing, OpenStreetMap, whatever).
Or how I could get rid of Google+ without needing to wipe my device or use a zero-day.
Or perhaps how I could get apk files from their repository without agreeing to the Google TOS and privacy policy, and without using some hacky system like Yalp store that breaks every couple of weeks for a little while.
This is definitely not easy to swap out. I bet that even from the top 10% of tech-savvy people on hacker news, there's 9%. that cannot figure out how to remove google completely within a normal working day of 8 hours.
Just install another maps app and set it as default? And just because Bing and Apple haven't created Android apps doesn't mean it's Google's fault.
> Or how I could get rid of Google+ without needing to wipe my device or use a zero-day.
Most phone these days don't even come with Google+, and if they do, no one is forcing you to login. You can disable it entirely.
> how I could get apk files from their repository without agreeing to the Google TOS and privacy policy
Doesn't that apply to almost any software with a license?
It's an interesting question though, because it depends on which 'market' you're talking about. This is a vexed question in antitrust law [1]. There is some pending litigation in the United States as to whether Apple illegally monopolized the market for iPhone apps [2], but it's been brought by app purchasers rather than the regulator, and Apple has taken the case to the Supreme Court to argue that the purchasers don't have standing to sue.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market
[2]: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/
The "happy medium" we have today: where jailbreaking was found to be not illegal, works for as long as we can jailbreak. I note that iOS does now allow sideloaded apps too, though they still must run in the sandbox, but it does mean you can distribute an app that wouldn't be approved for the App Store.
The EU had another workaround: impose a higher import tariff on video game consoles than general-purpose computers. Sony released a Linux kit for the PS2 so they could say the PS2 was a general-purpose computer, not a console. I think it worked initially but because hardly anyone bought the Linux kit (it wasn't sold at retail with the console) the customs people took a look and Sony had to start paying higher tariffs.
I cannot change the defaults in an Android phone and sell it to you. That's the problem.
Notably Google made their own maps app and Apple banned it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-screws-google-over-lati...
But it also applied to iTunes competitors:
https://www.engadget.com/2008/09/12/app-disqualified-from-ap...
On Android you can pick whatever apps you want as the default.
Have you tried Google Duo?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on...
They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher. They kind of expect for this in their long term strategic planning.
> Google must now bring the conduct effectively to an end within 90 days or face penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google's parent company.
Considering that, $5B doesn't seem to be much of a fine to be literally on the head of most smartphones in the world.
If they don't change in 90 days, they are fined 5% of their revenue every day. That's a lot.
Because it means that users have to look at alternatives. They might find that they prefer them in the long run, and it might even just incentivize competition to keep going. And this is especially damaging in monopoly-like situations, as many users don't even know of competing products.
But from the governments perspective that defeats the whole purpose, which is to raise funds.
A week would definitely put a noticeable dent in the economy.
> The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones,
Except as explicitly stated in the decision.
> This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules
Except for the very definition of anti-trust and monopoly and surely just by conincidence totally ignoring the three points.
> Android’s compatibility rules avoid this,
And nobody claimed that was a problem, but whatabout... .
> If you prefer other apps—or browsers, or search engines—to the preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps instead,
Except manufacturers are contractually forbidden from doing that and defaults are so unimportant that google explicitly puts them as contractual obligations...
> Phone makers don’t have to include our services; and they’re also free to pre-install competing apps alongside ours
Don't have to include..exceot if they need access to google play, which is what this whole decision was about...
Can they please hire better PR people? That is embarassing to read.
>Except as explicitly stated in the decision.
Well the EU simply argued they don't compete because iPhones tend to cost more and it's hard to switch. I feel like your average person would admit you have a choice between the two, which is what competition is.
Official release here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
Yes, it is, which is why the EU commission have a whole section on explicitly why "default install" is still anti-competitive.
Also, I don't think all Google apps can be uninstalled. Either way, I've certainly seen apps from other OEM partners that can be removed. That should outright be illegal within the EU. All apps that aren't strictly necessary for the functioning of the case operating system should be uninstallable.
Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current reading of the law, right? So what this ruling is effectively doing is punishing Google for trying to create an open mobile ecosystem to compete with iOS's closed approach. How is this helpful to consumers?
Feels like a lot of recent EU rulings on technology are well intentioned but actually make things worse for consumers by picking favorites and raising barriers to entry.
the only reason Apple doesn't get a fine for iOS is because it doesn't have 80% of the market share.
this is the law
https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
let's do apple, facebook, and amazon next.
now if we could only convince comcast to provide services to the EU....
having a small set of companies controlling everything harms all consumers.
Apple has no market dominance in the EU, so nothing in this ruling is relevant to them.
yes; but to exactly the same degree that it strengthens all other competitors.
better yet, force companies to open up their walled gardens. I want phones to be more like PCs, where the device is in full control by the owner. I want the app store be available to be changed without consequence, and/or have multiple competing stores.
The only thing that's changed from then to today is Android's market share. I'm not so sure taking away Google's ability to fight fragmentation is necessarily a good thing for consumers or developers.
It'll certainly please OEMs and telcos, though.
The EC claims that google have "denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere", but I fear this will mean that cheap Android phones will have a shitty OEM-branded webbrowser and some random search engine link.
If they must allow Android branded phones that do not come with google apps, then the EC is making it harder for consumers to choose by disallowing the normal use of a brand to signal what it is that you are buying when you buy something. People may buy an Android cheap phone thinking that they are getting what is now an Android phone and end up with a shittier product.
Under a normal market, these OEM-branded phones would be sold as "ShitPhone OS 12.0" and it'd be clear that you have the option between paying slightly more for Android, a lot more for iOS or go with ShitPhone 12.0
The stock is down about 1%. Not much considering that $5B should be about 1/3 of Googles yearly earnings.
On the other hand, 1% of Googles stock is about $8B. From that viewpoint, one might think it has come unanticipated.
Then again, stocks rise and fall 1% all the time. So it's hard to read something into it.
Is this the same case as reported in January here?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabet...
"Profit fell 35 percent to $12.6 billion because of the tax bill and a separate charge last summer for a $2.7 billion European Union antitrust fine, which is under appeal."
Maybe in future earning reports we will see statements like "Legal fines went up 80% YOY from $7B to $12B and we are planning to continue our aggressive spendings in this area to expand our market dominance".
Fragmentation is 99% FUD right now. If everybody starts shipping huge forks of Android; with silently diverging APIs, it will be a nightmare.
And that's just for devs.
I guess my point is that I see why the EU reached this conclusion but I am unsure this will be a net benefit for devs and consumers.
If I was Google, I’d use this as a perfect PR opportunity to switch gears and start charging $250 per phone for licensing Android and then offer $50 per phone to put all Google related apps on their for a net gain of $200 a phone plus their previous market share. Chrome, Google, Android are too deeply infiltrated to even effect a single percent of sales to a new OS competitor.
Then slowly eat away at the competition by producing Pixel and related models which you can beat the competition for lower and mid phones by jacking up android licensing as you eat away at the market. End result, EU users pay hundreds of more per each phone and Hardware companies die off. Apple could also further jack up their phone prices.
> Despite being a record fine, Alphabet generated about the same amount of money every 16 days in 2017, based on the company’s reported annual revenue of $110.9 billion for the year.
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabet...
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/...
Fines paid to the EU go straight into its own general budget. Combined with the nature of the EU Commission as judge, jury and executioner in cases like this, it is a severe conflict of interest. Member state are refusing to pay more into the budget and the UK is leaving, which will create a massive budget hole. The EU is strongly incentivised to levy fines for vaguely defined, highly debatable "crimes" on US tech firms in order to avoid their own internal political disputes over funding.
The executive fines someone (like you are fined for violating parking regulations), then you can appeal that fine in court, in this case most likely the ECJ.
Would you argue that it's wrong to address a coporation's wrongdoings? EU companies are fined regularly as well, might not create such an upheaval in the US media, though.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/european-commiss...
The EU budget (which is very small for such a big project) will actually increase post-Brexit.
Your comment is totally bogus.
I don't see why EU should "work with google" to make them follow regulations (EDIT: beyond the threat of punishment).
On looking into the judgement however it appeared as though both parties actively sought to subvert competition rules under a disingenuous "veil of ignorance". Warning shots had been fired earlier but the practices continued hence the fine.
I haven't read into the details of this judgement yet but you may well find similar reasoning therein.
While it's certainly Apple's prerogative to play EU states off against each other to get the best deal, it should have been blindingly obvious that what it was getting from Ireland would be, and should be reversed.
What makes you think that they didn't? Have you even read the WSJ article? It says:
"Google, which can appeal any decision, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago."
You are assuming that Google is a poor layman that is accidentally breaking laws. Indeed Google has an army of lawyers and they know precisely well the risk of their actions.
If I went out into the street and 'keyed' someone's status symbol car then I would not be in trouble until someone decided to do something about the crime.
The owner might not be pleased and, pressured by the insurance company, might get the police to go through CCTV and finally find me caught in the act.
Alternatively, a neighbour or passer by might just call the cops on me whilst I 'brazenly commit the deed'.
Either way, unless there is a report of wrong-doing then I would be getting away with it, not having to be fined etc. The police don't just sit there idly looking through the rule book looking what they can nick me for, someone would have to bring matters to their attention.
And that is the problem with this EU ruling. Nobody I know has bought a phone, decided to write to their MP (or MEP) and complained about not having Bing! as their default search engine. The EU don't accept complaints from little people like that anyway.
So what has gone on here is that some group of lobbyists have sought out some money from the Microsofts of this world, invariably to setup some fake pressure group, to bring on this legal action. With previous history, e.g. bundling in Windows, the modus operandi was the same, albeit with Netscape being the whinging ninnys.
Whwn the story finally hits the press the parasitical legal firm, the fake consumer group and who fronted the cash to pay for the action get forgotten, instead debate concerns whether the E.U. is a load of rubbish, being as silly as when they banned bent bananas and had wine lakes or whether Google have been truly evil.
In The Emperors New Clothes the people that sold the expensive invisible thread leave the story so in the final act there is just the stupidity of the crowd and the stupidity of the Emperor, story facilitated by the boy. Similarly here, the people that have wreaked this carnage have left the story a long time ago.
Fining Google 4 billions after they forced all sort of lock-in strategies on the users for a decade is less than a slap on the wrists.
Although, they should have put a fine of $12b (all of googles yearly earnings), effective immediate, and double it every year until non competitive practices ended.
Google is a big bully and if you try to compete with them in an area they care about, they will use their market dominance to keep your product out. They have been deserving that fine for a long time.
<shrug>
Given the enormous amount of anti-competitive behavior we see every day in the news, I can't help but feel this fine seems a bit arbitrary.
The fines "reflect the gravity and duration of the infringement. They are calculated under the framework of a set of Guidelines last revised in 2006." (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en....). There's a link to the guidelines on the page.
I also had a look at how to file an anti-trust complaint but to be honest, most info was over my head and more appropriate for a lawyer - this seems to be a good start: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/electronic_document...
Probably in part yes, but the European Commission is also pretty proactive. E.g. if I remember correctly, they reached out to Mozilla to get their take on how MS was bundling IE with Windows, after Opera originally complained about it. This came out of it: https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=is...
Isn't it a bit late though?
> Is this the result of lobbying?
In all likelihood there was almost certainly an element of lobbying, in particular complaints about these business practices which eventually coalesced into some kind of more focused activities.
It seems a bit quixotic to blame "competitors". Which competitors exactly? That's the whole premise of abuse of dominant market position.
Whenever allocating limited enforcement resources, you would expect the most egregious violators to be targeted first, with immediate social benefits and prompting self-compliance for smaller actors.
I imagine they read the antitrust law and then applied it. I could be wrong, though. Maybe it's because "they hate America for its freedoms."
Free market advocates are always talking about regulations and the need for free markets but don't seem to care so much about monopolies, outsize profits, the accumulation of market power and its abuse that further impedes the operation of free markets and the billionaires that result.
We're all a lot better off, even people that use iOS, because there has been real competition in mobile. This is essentially choosing which business models the EU thinks should win.
I'm sorry but this move is garbage. I am British and I'm so glad the UK is leaving this horrible, success hating farce of a union. Google paid billions to develop Android and then gave it away for free under the Apache license specifically to encourage competition and diversity in the smartphone market. They then added a carrot of some apps and the app store if OEMs agreed not to introduce backwards incompatibilities, to avoid the J2ME problem of a hopelessly forked and buggy platform.
If they hadn't done these things, very likely Apple would have wiped out every competitor in existence.
The EU is sending a powerful message with this move: keep everything proprietary, pick a high enough price point to price out most poor European countries, and you'll be fine. Build an open ecosystem where competitors target every price point and you'll suddenly find yourself being an involuntary contributing member to the EU's budget. What a great disincentive to build products for the Spanish or German markets.
Google is clearly getting in to the smartphone manufacturing business with Pixel phones and their acquihire of HTC engineers.
Outside of HN, most consumers want the integrated experience offered by Apple and the default Google apps. You see this with Samsung - where consumers like the hardware but are not super keen on Samsung Apps.
The easiest way to get that integrated experience is to buy an Apple or Google device.
In addition, said closed source components and services are merely defaults, and you can install anything you want?
Example: Bing Search, Cortana with full Android Assistant support, Microsoft Launcher (which has full Bing and Cortana support, just like Pixel Launcher has for Google), and Microsoft Edge.
Further Example: TouchWiz, Bixby, Samsung Browser, Samsung App Store, Samsung Pay, Samsung Everything. If there is an AOSP/Google app, Samsung has probably replaced it with a custom app that is not based on the AOSP/Google version and has generally ruined their phones with them.
I guess the EU has to fine Microsoft and Samsung too, since they also give away closed source OS components for Android, and they can only be used with Microsoft and Samsung services... even though it is optional to use them and can be replaced with something else.
I guess the EU has to fine Apple too, since they do not allow third party components at all, all the way from third party app stores, third party browsers, or anything deemed "overlaps with functionality in iOS (retroactively as well)".
In the form I stated, this is true, to get Play you must ship Google Search, and must do so on all of your devices.
What is not true, but implied by the EU ruling is that, a) Android (as defined as purely AOSP) is incomplete and unusable without Google apps, b) that other app stores do not exist for Android, c) that other search engines somehow magically don't work on Android.
None of those are true. I find it unfortunate that Android does not have higher profile alternative options, but no one else seems to want to put as much effort into their products as much as Google has.
Google's actions simply do not meet any reasonable definition of being a monopoly. Google's only action is requiring the entire Google Apps suite shipped on a device as an all-or-none license, it does not require the end user to use them, it does not prohibit the end user from installing others or disabling built in apps, it does not require signing into a Google account to use the device, it does not prevent APK sideloading.
And, until recently, Google was not even a phone OEM (and arguably still isn't, as they do not build their Pixels, HTC and LG do), and Pixels are not nearly as popular as Samsung Galaxy S series (which are famous for "ruining" the Android experience by using tons of custom Samsung apps), and LG G and V series, and Motorola phones dominating the mid-tier segment, and China and India being largely Xiamoi, Huawei, and BBK (Oppo, OnePlus, and Vivo).
Worldwide, Samsung and BBK are the #1 and #2 phone manufacturers, and they merely use Android as their OS. At what point did the EU have the authority to say Google had a monopoly when they do not sell Android phones in any reasonable capacity.
Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.
If Google packs its bags they'll be the ones feeling most of the pain. And such a drastic move would have consequences on any business Alphabet tries to do in the EU over the next decades.
Do you imagine the EU would force every ISP to block Google web search, Gmail, etc? Beyond being technically difficult I do not believe the EU currently has the power to create a Great Firewall of Europe like that.
Sure, if they don't want to get any revenue from the whole European Union anymore. Fortunately the EU is a big enough market so that Google doesn't have any leverage here.
Google leaving the EU would be, for the company, like Google leaving the US – firing half their staff, losing half their revenue and profits, etc. Absolutely not worth it.
This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B.
Can Google just continue their practices after this?
it'd be interesting to imagine how a company could potentially still operate in a hostile country, if said company is only dealing with cyberspace products (such as software/saas).
Would they be able to continously ignore any/all rulings, by operating the datacenter, and any payment mechanisms, outside said hostile country?
Seeing as nobody else has read the article.
>If Google fails to ensure compliance with the Commission decision, itwould be liable for non-compliance payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google's parent company. The Commission would have to determine such non-compliance in a separate decision, with any payment backdated to when the non-compliance started.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million...
As for Google Mobile Services (GMS) - I believe the smart thing to do now would be to start charging OEM's, that sell phones in the EU, to license GMS at 5% of the cost of the device or $50 - whichever is lower. If OEM's don't want to use GMS they're free to ship their own services.
Big corporations often succeed in avoiding taxes [1][2], and regularly pit states or countries against each other to get the highest tax benefit [3]. Governments really don't like that, but often there's not a lot they can do.
Except for banding up in something like the EU, and using that combined power to strike back.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/google-s-...
[2] https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-in-20...
[3] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/07/could-your-st...
This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B.
This is our version of a satirical fundraising campaign by a comedian?
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand in that.
Fuck the laws and regulations in the countries in which they do business apparently.
Is having someone as big as google a good thing for the rest of us? Would society, economies etc benefit from google broken down into several smaller independent companies?
I really like this point:
> [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").
Woaah, if this is dropped, it might entice someone to produce Google-free Android Phones (e.g. with MicroG) WITHOUT sacrificing the "Google pre-installed" Android market. I would buy the Google-Facebook-Other_BS-free variant of your otherwise commercial high-to-mid-end, google-and-other-stuff-infested mobile phone!
Sometimes when I'm in a cynical mood, I feel like my android phone isn't really mine, it's owned by google and exists purely to serve them.
This would improve the smartphone market on so many levels. We need a great driver support for AOSP, multiple app stores, community driven updates, so on and so forth to make this new reality.
I also feel like Android could play a huge role in IoT if it weren't as Google infested as you call it.
PS - site is working fine for me.
But this is objectively true, else why would Google spend so much money developing an OS to release for free?
I am not aware of a smartphone out there where that isn't true. What is the incentive for Google to continue updating Android at all?
Isn't that what the BlackPhone has been doing for some time?
https://www.silentcircle.com/products-and-solutions/blackpho...
But I am not willing to spend 650 Euro on a BlackPhone2 when a 250 Euro phone is technically/hardware-wise enough for me. If things go as the EU wishes, Silent Circle could offer mass market phones at competitive prices and with the software most users expect (full Google Android experience) in addition to their current offering - allowing for MUCH better scaling effects and thus lower prices for their phones.
You can s/Silent Circle/ with any other manufacturer, e.g. HTC or Samsung. Those are already targeting the mass market and thus are already producing at scale. In theory they "only" need to develop a source tree variant, add some bucks to the price for Enterprise phones and could then serve a (gut feeling: growing?) privacy niche as well.
I don't know if that's really worthwhile for any them, I honestly have my doubts; what's the local saying? Hope dies last... Whatever way this turns out, at least now the manufacturers have more legal options (in the EU).
A formal decision—which would mark the EU’s sharpest rebuke yet to the power of a handful of tech giants—is set to be taken during Wednesday morning’s meeting of EU commissioners following a presentation by competition chief Margrethe Vestager, according to the person. No discussion of the decision is expected, the official said.
The EU’s antitrust regulator has been looking into whether Google had abused the dominance of its Android operating system, which runs more than 80% of the world’s smartphones, in order to promote and entrench its own mobile apps and services—particularly the company’s eponymous search engine.
Google, which can appeal, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago. Google says Android, which is free for manufacturers to use, has increased competition among smartphone makers, lowering the prices for consumers. Google also says the allegation that it stymied competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices—and consumers can download others.
The fine would top the EU’s €2.4 billion antitrust decision against Google just over a year ago.
Wednesday’s expected ruling would be the latest in a series of decisions in which the EU has cast itself in the vanguard of a backlash against U.S. tech superpowers, on issues ranging from competition to taxes to privacy. Ms. Vestager has become the face of that battle, arguing that regulators must do more to restore fairness to the digital market.
The EU’s executive announced Wednesday morning that Ms. Vestager would give a press conference at 7 a.m. ET.
Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
If you think you see similarities between this fine and the microsoft case you should also consider the differences.
For all intents and purposes the market is split 50/50 between Android and iOS, and the fact that Android can be competitive with iOS is largely due to Google’s conditions, as by ensuring quality and consistency they spared Android from the fate of the desktop linux and turned it into a mass market product, not to mention the whole free and open source thing, which is a big deal that is seemingly being brushed aside (what about all the forks?!).
In any other context finnig an open source project for antitrust violations is absurd.
They keep hitting Google with these record fines as there is no political cost for hammering Google in the EU it’s all profit, they get fawning headlines from an approving press and quench the bloodthirst of the politician there who don’t even try to hide their distaste for US tech firms and Google in particular (try and look up their quotes), they can talk up the benefits of free trade all they want and complain about this tariff or that but there is no denying that much of what the EU does is try and hamstring US tech companies.
P.S.
A recent indicator as to the political nature of this action, the fine announcement was delayed until after Trump's visit to europe: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/eu-go...
As it is they seem to make very rude guests.
When Google remove free apps that are used by millions of users from the play store for weeks, because one of their own automated tests fails, such fines can't come soon enough.
The 2nd paragraph in the press release.
Expect pricey freemium models coming to the Google product line in the coming years, which will give the green light to other companies to push higher prices for software.
We've already entered the age of monthly subscriptions, the amount of iOS apps using this system is growing at an unprecedented rate. Get ready!
What do you say?
They should probably do this anyway, since control of computing platforms and user data within them is fast becoming a major factor both in geopolitics and in business.
> [Google] 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);
I think this is an acceptable business practice. Saying "If you use one, you have to use the others" is reasonable. We want to provide a consistent experience so you cannot pick and choice which part of the bundle you use.
> [Google] made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;
I don't see how this is a problem in a business. "Hey, we want to use our app. Here is some money if you agree to only use ours." Seems like a bog standard way of doing business.
> [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").
This one I think the Commission has made a good point with this one. This one does hamper competition because you have to choose Android or Android forks. Well, that is an obvious choice because of how big Android is. That is bad for competition and I am okay with Google being fined for it.
Overall I disagree with 2/3 of the reasons but I do respect the Commission to make the fines big enough that they hurt so that Google might change behavior.
I also think that manufacturers have themselves to thank. AOSP used to be quite complete in the old days, but every time Google updates it, it takes ages for the device makers to update their devices (if they do it at all); that's why so much of what makes Android great right now relies on Play Services. It was a move that was welcomed by the consumers/tech journalists.
You are answering your own question. The problem is that Apple is not under investigation because it has 15% a 20% marketshare and so it's impact is regarded as rather small and not seen as a monopoly.
When you have a big share of the pie there are other rules that apply and personally I'm fine with that. When you have 80% of the market it can't be all fun and play.
