back to article EU probes Google’s Android omerta again: Talk now, or else

Frustrated Brussels regulators have ordered mobe-makers to spill the beans on Google’s secret Android contracts – or face a fine. The European Commission’s competition authority, the Director-General for Competition (DG-COMP) is concerned by several aspects of phone makers' relationships with Google, and wrote to them in the …

  1. Lars Silver badge
    Linux

    Any hope

    El Reg will test a Jolla phone soon.

  2. Anonymoist Cowyard
    FAIL

    OK then...

    "Of concern to the competition authorities is the all-or-nothing bundling of Google mobile services"

    Amazon and Nokia say hi....

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Anonymoist Cowyard Re: OK then...

      "Amazon and Nokia say hi...." And quite rightly so. If Microsoft can be forced to bundle the ludicrous 'browser choice' with desktop Windows, why do I have to accept an Android phone with Faecesbook? A friend of mine that works for one of the UK telcos (one I am sure will have received a missive from the EU) is currently being paid to investigate Ubuntu Linux on Android-capable smartphones as the telco is considering building their own stack to get away from the Google lock-in. How serious the telco is is another question, it may just be a threat to wave back at Google or it may just be a backup is the EU competition peeps get too obstructive, but I would certainly be interested in an HTC One without the Android and Sense bloat and with proper support.

      1. fandom

        Re: Anonymoist Cowyard OK then...

        Are you seriously blaming Google because your phone includes an app from their biggest competitor?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Android, the definition of open source.

    You can just run a command on the command line and grab all the source.

    Well, that is if you don't need access to Google Play, if you do then it might as well be a closed source OS.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You can just run a command on the command line and grab all the source.

      Really? Also of the binary blob that Google wants people to implement? Why not have that in open source format? Any why the secrecy? If we're not supposed to have any privacy, I cannot see them being entitled to secrecy either.

      It's almost as if they have something to hide..

      1. Phil W

        "Also of the binary blob that Google wants people to implement? Why not have that in open source format?"

        Security for one, exposing the authentication systems contained within might put customers at risk perhaps. Also (and this is more likely) the DRM systems for apps and music/video content, compromising that would negatively affect their relationship with rights holders thus making it harder to licence content for streaming/download.

        I don't really see a problem here, Google are entitled to stipulate requirements of including their app store and other services on devices. Just as manufacturers are entitled to choose to go with AOSP and use their own app store instead.

        Really this is only happening because of the market share Android has. You don't see them investigating Microsoft because their phone OS forces you to use their app store and services, or specifying the hardware required to be allowed to licence it.

        MS do this for much the same reason as Google's requirement to include a full array of software, that is to ensure as consistent a user experience as possible across devices and there by protect their software brand image.

        1. dajames

          All or nothing

          "Also of the binary blob that Google wants people to implement? Why not have that in open source format?"

          Security for one, exposing the authentication systems contained within might put customers at risk perhaps.

          Not a valid reason. "Security through Obscurity" is no security at all.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

          Also (and this is more likely) the DRM systems for apps and music/video content, compromising that would negatively affect their relationship with rights holders thus making it harder to licence content for streaming/download.

          Yes, that is a bit more likely. Any DRM in a software-only system is itself no better than security by obscurity -- DRM just doesn't work -- but the copyright holders are grasping at straws.

          I suspect that the real reason why Google wouldn't want to Open Source their blob is that it would make it easier for OEMs to pick and choose which bits they bundled. The blob is indivisible (and terms won't allow reverse engineering it)

          1. Phil W

            Re: All or nothing

            ' "Security through Obscurity" is no security at all. '

            It annoys me when people say this because is demonstrably untrue. It would be more accurate to say "Security through obscurity is generally poor and easily circumvented, but can hamper efforts to break the underlying security".

            It also depends on the obscurity, hiding your spare key under the doormat is security through really poor obscurity. Hiding your door key up the arse of model pelican you keep by the front door is also security through obscurity but far more likely to be effective.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: All or nothing

              " hiding your spare key under the doormat is security through really poor obscurity. Hiding your door key up the arse of model pelican you keep by the front door is also security through obscurity but far more likely to be effective."

              Hiding a trojan key under the doormat, rigged so that if it's used, it will set off an alarm is an example of security via apparently poor obscurity which not only catches villains, but allows intent to be shown.

              See "Honey Trap".

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Security for one, exposing the authentication systems contained within might put customers at risk perhaps.

          No way. Authentication processes belong IMHO firmly in the category of code that should comply in full with Kerckhoff's principle (I'll leave the apostrophe argument for another day). This is supposed to protect me - if you're trying to hide that mechanism there is NO way I can have a 3rd party confirm I can trust it, certainly not when provided by a company whose main goal is mass data collection by any means possible.

          Also (and this is more likely) the DRM systems for apps and music/video content, compromising that would negatively affect their relationship with rights holders thus making it harder to licence content for streaming/download.

          In that case, they should not claim it is Open Source, because they're trying to imply with that it's Open all the way. Which is isn't. Partially Open would be better, but that would upset marketing people. A lie is probably the most accurate - it's about as truthful as their assurance that your email is not scanned by a 3rd party, casually skipping over the fact that they ARE that 3rd party, and scan at will (if you want to claim it's benign you should keep in mind that they caught some criminal - IMHO that's targeting, sniffing and surveillance all in one, and as a non-criminal you should object against that.

          I don't really see a problem here, Google are entitled to stipulate requirements of including their app store and other services on devices. Just as manufacturers are entitled to choose to go with AOSP and use their own app store instead.

          I do see a problem: deception and misleading statements. Which are still mightily frowned upon by consumer organisations and trade description laws. Unless you buy them off, of course.

          1. Phil W

            "they should not claim it is Open Source"

            They don't, and never have.

            The Android OS is open source, and is available as such through the AOSP (Android Open Source Project).

            Google's app store and other proprietary software is added on top and is quite decidedly closed source.In much the same way as HTC Sense, Samsung TouchWiz or all of Amazon's Kindle stuff on the Fire.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. ratfox

    Wasn't this inquiry started at the request of unhappy phone makers? Don't they already have enough dirt to back up their complaints?

    1. Zippy's Sausage Factory
      WTF?

      Unhappy competing phone makers. Like Microsoft and Apple. Kind of makes me feel that the whole thing is basically using (or misusing) EU competition law to try and damage a rival. Which makes the fact that in Microsoft's case, they earn a royalty per Android device, particularly galling.

      Not that I'm pro Google (I never use their search engine and I have more Apple than non-Apple devices these days), but hey...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Where does it say that Apple was involved in this? It is probably in Apple's favor if Android OEMs are chafing against the restrictions Google places on them, rather than everyone being happy and all singing from the same Android hymn book as Google would like people to think.

        Expecting the OEMs to willingly provide details of Google's bad behavior is unrealistic. The PC makers weren't willing to rat out Microsoft and Intel, because they knew there would be consequences. It is like the police trying to get business owners to rat out the mafia for hitting them up for protection money. If the business owners think the mafia will kill them for talking, nothing the police can do will get them to talk.

        They'll only cooperate with this probe if the punishment from the EU (1% of annual turnover for five years) is seen as worse than the damage that Google could do to their business if they retaliated. That's why such a large punishment is being dangled over their heads.

      2. ratfox

        So Microsoft is complaining that Google is twisting the arm of its competitors and making their life difficult? How very considerate of them <_<

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Why Microsoft cares

          Presumably they believe that phone makers have been discouraged from pursuing a mixed Android / WP strategy. One would assume the reason they think that is because they've been told so by OEMs "off the record", though it is possible such pressure was overstated to provide an excuse when they didn't want to sell Windows phones.

          For those OEMs who also sell PC Windows products, maybe they feared Microsoft's response there - Microsoft better hope their nose is completely clean in that regard, as once the regulators start digging who knows what they might uncover!

          Whether the near absence of Windows Phone products from vendors other than Nokia is due to Google pressure, rather than fear of Microsoft's close relationship with Nokia (before they bought them) or the general lack of market demand for Windows Phone, is something the EU will have to determine.

    2. David 164

      The unhappy phone maker was Nokia and Google they been effectively controlled by Microsoft for a few years. The others haven't complained that much. An if and Google is cheaper than developing there own OS or paying Microsoft for there's.

  6. stephajn

    Rings familiar...

    Internet Explorer bundled with Windows and the antitrust case resulting from it, started by Netscape. (If memory serves?) IE started dominating the crap out of Netscape, and in an effort to save their bacon, they took MS to court over bundling the browser with the OS. We all know how that ended....

    Now Google is doing the same thing.... "Take all of our services or else..." I can't remember...did Microsoft lose in the end? Seems to me that IE is STILL bundled with Windows and tied heavily to underpinnings of the operating system and in the end the company still operates as one unit.

    Why should it end up any different for Google?

    1. Ken Darling

      Re: Rings familiar...

      "Internet Explorer bundled with Windows"

      MS also inextricably tied IE in with the OS so that it couldn't truly be uninstalled without catastrophic results.

      All of Googles services can be removed - plenty of custom ROMs don't bundle them - though, granted, you may need a rooted device.

      1. Mark .

        Re: Rings familiar...

        So in other words, it's not possible since most phones aren't easily rooted.

        Anyhow, the issue is with what the licence terms are, not whether you can install AOSP or a custom ROM. It's not _exactly_ the same case as with MS, but there are similarities - it's about using a monopoly position in one market to gain unfair competition in other markets.

  7. Daggerchild Silver badge

    "How did Google hurt you?"

    "Erm.. they didn't?"

    "Ah. I see."

    *places fine threat on table*

    "So. How did Google hurt you?"

  8. Irongut

    home-grown apps phone makers... were pressured by Google not to include

    I wish Google would pressure Samsung to stop bundling their home grown apps. For every Google app or service there is a matching Samsung app or service. Only the Samsung version is a bigger pile of crap than the Google version. Even Amazon's app store is better than Samsung's and its pretty crap too.

    Hey EU how about an investigation into why I can't remove any Google apps, Samsung apps, Twitter or Facebook from my phone? You can uninstall updates (really useful that) but you can't remove privacy and seurity violating apps that you don't want or need.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: home-grown apps phone makers... were pressured by Google not to include

      Hey EU how about an investigation into why I can't remove any Google apps, Samsung apps, Twitter or Facebook from my phone?

      You can't remove "news stand", "game centre" and (new) "tips" from iOS either, garbage as it may be. Thankfully you can all stick them into a folder now.

  9. Polyphonic
    Headmaster

    I'm not pro-Google but I feel some of the things that come out of Brussels are driven by the desire to break up big businesses, which the French and Belgiums do not like one bit. Especially if they are not French.

  10. Arctic fox
    Windows

    Had you forgotten that when MS fracked up recently over offering the proper choices.......

    ...............of browser to those in Europe who had bought a new Windows pc Monkey Boy himself had to ring Brussels and grovel? Regardless, that fuck up is going to cost Redmond several billion dollars (as it should - they did indeed fuck up) and I see no reason why Google should be treated any differently.

    1. Arctic fox
      Windows

      Re: Had you forgotten that when MS fracked up recently over offering the proper choices.......

      I do not know what happened here but my post was a reply to "stephajn".

    2. Dark Penguin

      Re: Had you forgotten that when MS fracked up recently over offering the proper choices.......

      So what if Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows. You were still free to download a competing browser application, yet Microsoft was blown down with a penalty that may well have contributed to its ultimate decline. Maybe they deserved that for completely different reasons that had nothing to do with the EU. But EU regulators seems to believe that if you get too big, you must practically beg your consumers to switch to competing products. How does that make any sense?

  11. tom dial Silver badge

    ?

    - How much does Google charge for Android?

    - Are there plausible alternatives?

    - Can manufacturers choose freely from among the alternatives?

    - Can phone users choose freely from a variety of models offered by a number of manufacturers and carriers?

    - Do the same ones who attack Android for fragmentation also object to Google's anti-fragmentation measures?

    - Is there any reason to think this activity is not rent seeking organized by companies unable, so far, to show a product that people are interested in having?

  12. fandom
  13. Vociferous

    So why's the EU got it in for Google?

    When the EU gets this bloody-minded against an international company, it means that there's a French company which is unable to compete with the international company.

    So -- what French company is it the EU is trying to protect by constantly spanking Google?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So why's the EU got it in for Google?

      When the EU gets this bloody-minded against an international company, it means that there's a French company which is unable to compete with the international company.

      Alternative option: the EU gets rather pissy with companies that are happy to claim EU domicile to avoid paying US taxes, but suddenly become "US" companies again when they're asked to comply with EU law. Screw that. Go, EU, go.

      1. Indolent Wretch

        Re: So why's the EU got it in for Google?

        Well all you have at the moment is a threat backed fishing expedition to see if a law may have been broken, instigated by the accused's biggest enemies.

        I'm fine with that. Fishing expeditions are often necessary when there is a dominant player.

        But come on, Android is free, but running an App Store isn't, running the gaming services isn't, running all the other crap isn't, running all the advertising isn't, getting all those licenses for content isn't, and I have a slight feeling that if Google are paying for it all and their name and logo are inextricably linked to it they may just be entitled to say "do it this way".

        The one thing here I see as being a crime would be if Google were saying to the OEMs, you can't access our services if you make Windows Phone. That would be very reminiscent of Intels appalling behavior against AMD.

        But I would be very very surprised if that were true. I can't see it as being in Googles interests. The people at the top know how dangerous such a policy is. Plenty of manufacturers started making both and the ones that gave up did for what seem sensibly commercial reasons, e.g. "Nobody wanted the damn things". The ones that still do both have unfettered access to Google services.

        This is just French and German pissyness at Google lavishly catered at Microsofts expense.

        1. John Savard

          Re: So why's the EU got it in for Google?

          There was an incident where one maker of Android phones ran into trouble when it acquired a maker of non-app store Android phones. However, in that case, Google's action was not seen as heavy-handed, because the OEM app store for those phones happened to deal in pirated Android apps. So you also can't simultaneously sell both Google Android and forked Android.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tizen

    So that's why Samsung is on/off/on/off with Tizen smartphones ...

  15. John Savard

    Double-Bind

    Obviously companies that sell phones in markets other than Europe would suffer worldwide consequences if they violated their contracts with Google. It should be Google, not the phone makers, they go after to compel revelation of the agreements involved.

    Also, so that force majeure can be used as an excuse, not fines, but actual prison time has to be threatened. I can understand the goal of fostering competition, but they're not doing it right - the likely result would instead be that no one would be able to buy an Android phone in Europe that can access the Google app store - they'd have to make do with the cheap Chinese kit.

  16. styven

    This is frustrating really in that why did the EU not force all pc makers to reveal their contract with Microsoft. Do they not wonder why you still to this day cannot go into any high street and buy a laptop/desktop with no other operating system (exclude anything made by Apple) other than Windows.

    As far as I am aware no mobile phone maker is forced to install Android and can install any other operating system they like. I get that there may well be issues with Google's agreement/conditions and that this may well be restrictive, but if what I have read over the years PC makers could not even install an alternative OS without feeling the wrath of Microsoft.

    I am happy that the EU wants to protect us and prevent abuse but lets not forget the biggest abuser still is. If mobile makers are forced to disclose their agreement then so should every company including Microsoft who to this day hide behind NDA's.

    For clarity yes I am a Fandroid and no fan of Microsoft.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like