Or the fourth option...
Whilst I understand the regulators motivation here, what if Google had just said, "Sod it, we won't license Android for use in the EU."
What would the regulators do then?
In an effort to placate Europe's regulators furious at its anticompetitive tactics, Google has overhauled its Android licensing practices for the continent. And it involves paying the ad giant money. In short, Google's Search App and Chrome browser are being unbundled from the rest of the the Chocolate Factory's suite of …
First Apple would have to achieve a dominant share in some sort of market. Having a dominant share in "browser engines for the iPhone" or similar is not something regulators can do anything about.
The reason they are taking this action against Google is because they have dominant positions in several markets - search, advertising, and mobile OS and leverage them against each other to reinforce their market positions. Apple has a mobile market share somewhere in the teens, a mobile app store market share of similar size, an even smaller market share for browsers, and 0% market share for search and for advertising. They don't have a dominant share in anything.
> First Apple would have to achieve a dominant share in some sort of market.
they currently have a controlling share in anything which has to work cross-platform.
e.g. chat apps.
They recently used this to block a chat app that had animoji-style face-mask chatting saying that it was similar to what apple offered.
https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/329090-emoji-monopoly-apple-rejects-app
even if you take this at face value; They're saying that nobody is allowed to build a cross-platform animoji-style chat platform.
(facetime is apple-only, so even if the functionality was similar; being able to use it across devices would be a significant difference)
not sure how the legal wrangling would play out - but this is a clear case of where the iPhone lock-up can impact the whole ecosystem.
"they currently have a controlling share in anything which has to work cross-platform.
e.g. chat apps."
They do? I think the dominant chat app is WhatsApp right now, which isn't an Apple product.
However, the point that DougS was making was that iPhones themselves don't have enough market dominance to allow them to be considered a monopoly. If there's no monopoly, then there can't be an abuse of monopoly -- so whatever Apple wants to do in terms of dictating what is or is not allowed to exist on iOS is unimportant in terms of this aspect of the law.
Whatsapp is NOT cross-platform.
It doesn't work on Desktops.
(requiring a mobe to work in a browser or in an excuse for a desktop program, does not equal 'working' on a Desktop)
Really, ICQ seems to be the only decent IM application/protocol left nowadays as Skype is going to hell. Time to unbury my UIN...
Apple is simply not allowing that Russian chat app on their App Store. There is nothing stopping the authors from offering it on the Google Play Store for Android.
Apple doesn't have a dominant share in app stores, and no country has laws against a company being able to restrict what it offers in their own store. If I want to sell my widget on Amazon, and contact them but they say "no thank you, we already have widgets and don't need another" I can't go whining to the FTC or EU competition authority because Amazon doesn't have a dominant share in online stores - let alone stores in general when you include both online and brick-and-mortar. Though I'm sure that's their ultimate goal - if they ever achieve it then they will experience problems like those Google is enduring.
unfortunately... and I am no Apple lover (have never owned one, just had to work on them), Apple is in a different position as the OWNER of its own IOS, Design Process, Hardware and its own Store. Apple provides the whole experience including diagnostics and high street level hardware support solutions (no it isn't perfect - but as a long time PC(MS), Android and LINUX user I can say OUR (tech) industry needs this level of assistance for our less capable brothers and sisters - hense its (Apple) success!
I suspect that it would be very easy for regulators to do nothing. There's a billion Android phones in China that don't have Google, and it wouldn't take that much time to build replacements. Of course, users would complain and companies would lose money, but they would all blame Google. And then Google would lose the market.
Google apps are good; they're often the best. But the competition does exist, and is ready to take over if they stumble.
I have been running my phone without google apps and services installed since January. It started as an experiment, but I've not ever felt the need to go back.
It's still limited to nerds for now, but if the demand were there it wouldn't take much to get it ready for the mainstream.
If someone can get a push notification framework that doesn't rely on google, it could take off very quickly.
I have been running my phone without google apps and services installed since January. It started as an experiment, but I've not ever felt the need to go back.
When I deGoogled a previous phone,1 the only thing I had trouble with was finding a calendar app that would work without access to the Google calendar service. I didn't want one that sync'd with anything, just something that would show a valid calendar and let me note things in it. None of the ones I downloaded off F-Droid, including supposedly "offline" ones, worked with the Google calendar service disabled.
So I just created notes for appointments, and transcribed them into my work calendar whenever I got around to it. Worked OK. Back in the Dark Ages we used to do the same thing with pen & paper.
1Which I'd still be using, if the screen hadn't spontaneously failed completely. Replacement phone didn't last long enough for me to get around to deGoogling it; the touchscreen stopped responding to touches less than a year after I bought it. Haven't even gotten around to rooting the current phone, and I'm not sure I want to take the time, because these things are crap that breaks far too quickly. (My Nokia Symbian 6 phone worked fine for 3 years, and still works when I need it as an emergency backup, though the battery life is rubbish and there are few dead pixels on the screen. None of the Android phones I've had have made it past the 2-year mark.)
"There's a billion Android phones in China that don't have Google, and it wouldn't take that much time to build replacements."
The chances are that those replacements wouldn't get security patches pushed to them and the multitude of "stores" that supported them would be fragmented and not policed for security issues. It's not a good scenario.
"There's a billion Android phones in China that don't have Google, and it wouldn't take that much time to build replacements."
The chances are that those replacements wouldn't get security patches pushed to them
Of course they would.
Oh, hang on. Did you mean patches to improve security?
"Most user of Android phone are lucky to get one update, if any, even from new."
Things are slowly starting to change - all three Nokias in our house have had 10 updates so far this year and I anticipate at least another one, if not two before the end of the year (the December update will probably arrive mid-Janurary).
The chances are that those replacements wouldn't get security patches pushed to them and the multitude of "stores" that supported them would be fragmented and not policed for security issues. It's not a good scenario.
Im sure the owners of Samsung devices will miss the regular and timely security updates
"...and the multitude of "stores" that supported them would be fragmented..."
that is called freedom! You can't have ONE store and then blame them afterwards for having a monopoly, doh! This is again a half baked Euro-fine in which eventually nobody really knows where this €4.34bn euro went to.
Besides there's ASOP Android so if the majority of handset-manufacturers decides NOT to use ASOP then don't blame google for their position. And the Chinese have been building Android phones without Google-services for ages. Besides why can't google just sell their app-suite as a side-loadable apk? What's the big deal anyway?
I always ask myself, these politicians hand out fines like cookies yet we, Euro-citizens, never know what happens with all that money? I find that more worrying than Google's monopoly. Because in the case of Google we KNOW where that money is going to. In the case of damn politicians we have absolutely no clue!
"You can't have ONE store and then blame them afterwards for having a monopoly, doh!"
_Abuse of monopoly_, not just monopoly. When the store owner makes it mandatory to have an account in the store in order to get security patches for your phone and bricks your phone if you try to use other shops, it's obviously abuse.
Reality is that it isn't only shop, it's only the only _Google approved_ shop, just because they own it.
That's abuse of monopoly, very obviously: Android provider (Google in this case) has no business to tell me what shops I may or may not use.
Even less making it mandatory to use Googles own.
> _Abuse of monopoly_, not just monopoly. When the store owner makes it mandatory to have an account in the store in order to get security patches for your phone and bricks your phone if you try to use other shops, it's obviously abuse.
I get it. You hate Google with a passion and probably love Microsoft (is that you TheVogon?) and resent Windows Phone being a complete failure.
But there is no need to just make stuff up: "bricks your phone if you try to use other shops". Bullshit!! Using F-Droid does not brick your Android.
> Reality is that it isn't only shop, it's only the only _Google approved_ shop, just because they own it.
Why would they approve a shop that they don't control and therefore have no information about ?
The chances are that those replacements wouldn't get security patches pushed to them and the multitude of "stores" that supported them would be fragmented and not policed for security issues. It's not a good scenario.
Let's all play Fantasy FUD!
The chances are that those replacements would only run on the Commodore Plus/4 and you'd have to run Mastertronic games on them and they didn't even have security in the 80s so it's not a good scenario.
The regulators are solving a problem that doesnt exist for people who mostly dont care - as consumers if you dont like what google are doing by an iPhone or non-android phone, if you're a techy user replace with CyanogenMod or LineageOS or some other non google-android, if you're really anti data-slurping - buy a feature phone and enjoy days of battery life. If you're a manufacturer use one of the dozen or so Android forks that are out there.
Seriously - this just the EU regulators trying to show that their unelected government has teeth. Better to stop twatting about and recover the vast sums of TAX that google/amazon/Starbucks etc find ways of not paying.
@ratfox: Google apps are good; they're often the best
no, they are crap. I don't use any Google app (actually, I do use 1 app from them: the calendar, but I use it with external calendars, synced with DavDroid)
- for maps I use OsmAnd+
- for mail I use AquaMail
- as browser I use Opera
- as market I have FDroid (but use GooglePlay also)
- for search I use Qwant (or DuckDuckGo, depends)
- ...
I would take a Google-free Android if I could, and would even be willing to pay for it.
Funnily enough, I use the googly calendar because my family does. They can see events I create.
I can't see events I create. On my own calendar. On the same app I created them in.
Google Maps is fine for the rare occasions I use it.
Gmail is just where the spam arrives.
Chrome plays spam movies, because the control for not autoplaying videos doesn't work. It's generally crap, but so is the web now, so it's the best tool for the job and the backend is already installed by default anyway.
Everything that's broken has been broken for as long as I've been using Android. It basically reduces my phone to... well, a phone. And a camera. A crap, grainy, non-focusing one that doesn't even come with a lens cap so it gets all smudgy! Can you believe it? A camera. Without a lens cap. And people actually buy this crap for it having a camera!
"...the competition does exist, and is ready to take over if they stumble.''
Not sure that's true even though we wish it was.
Mobile has essentially been a two-horse race between Android and Apple for quite some time now. Either punters can empty their pockets and pay the Apple tax for a quality experience or they can take their chances on the roulette wheel that is Android - at any given price point.
Although we hate the iPhone there's no doubt it wins hands-down in many ways over Android. That said though, both fail to offer a satisfying experience with each hurting their customers in unique ways.
We wish for something else badly but have to use a so-called smartphone because there is no viable alternative. Even the basic form of these devices is an exercise in dull conformity: a 'one-size fits all' that fails to please a great many.
Besides, given the maturity of the technology and the industry's continued push towards services as its main bread and butter, isn't it about time the whole hardware/software realm was opened and freed up? After all, other industries aren't encumbered by such things in order to survive: for example, the last time we looked the construction industry didn't seem to be paying patent royalties on bricks and cement...
This is always brought up about such things.
The regulators really wouldn't care very much. They get paid either way. And they can claim it's "opening up the market" (which is what you want such regulators to do, really, isn't it?). Also, every Google competitor will jump behind them and claim that they were just protecting "the small guy" and love them for it.
The biggest answer really is "Would you like to lose 50% of your revenue from one of the largest markets in the world?" Often the answer is no. Because people forget that annoying the EU has major ramifications for any international company, because it's often the second biggest market they trade in, if not the first. Nobody's stupid enough to throw away 50% of their worldwide revenue for the sake of a bit of legal work. Did you see company's responses to GDPR? Even US-only companies were diving for cover.
You mean the Google apps, which is what they license. Android itself is a combination of a patched Linux kernel and a bunch of stuff attached to that. Google does not own the license for most of that and playing games by restricting those licenses by location might result in things like contributors pulling their code on short notice and leaving core Android dead in the water.
So regardless of what Googles decides, Android phones wouldn't be going away, they'd just stop being Googly all of a sudden.
"Sod it, we won't license Android for use in the EU."
This is a silly strawman: AOSP is already out there and won't be going away. Not sure that such a restriction would stand up in court, but it's irrelevant. Google has, however, been moving components, including OS updates to Play Services and there is not yet a reliable replacement for this yet. A marketplace might be interesting but, of course, API compatbility would be crucial.
I think Google might stand to benefit from competition here, it does provide some top-class services and I can see an advantage in getting out of as much direct interaction with consumers as possible: don't run the app store but provide the infrastructure (including code checking) for one.
"...Google has, however, been moving components, including OS updates to Play Services and there is not yet a reliable replacement for this yet...."
They did that to stop manufacturers from circumventing Google's apps and services. In that respect the EU is correct to tap on their fingers! On the other hand if those stupid politicians sponsored true EU-developped phone OS's a bit more then we wouldn't need that goddamn Android!
There was Symbian, Meego, Sailfish OS etc... All of those could have been pushed as the primary phone OS in Europe. The latter 2 can even run certain Android apk's. But they blew it like they always do. And when the ship has sunk then they wake up. Now when every jackshit-phone is running Android THEN they complain! F... idiots!
Whilst I understand the regulators motivation here, what if Google had just said, "Sod it, we won't license Android for use in the EU." What would the regulators do then?
Triple the fine, or gently remind Google that there's also a GDPR problem coming their way. If they really try to be cute here, the EU could be cute too by suggesting that the GDPR people need to set an extra example by going for the full 4% of turnover.
I think I need to go and stock up on popcorn..
"Android partners wishing to distribute Google apps may also build non-compatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets [snip]"
Such pathetically passive aggressive language there. I'd be pretty peeved at that attitude if I were the Competition Commissioner.
A pity it doesn't require them to make everything else also optional. I realise much is tied to Google Play Services and it might even make sense for them to make that, or access to the Play Store, the one paid-for item due to the real value it adds. But I'm sure Google knows very well it's crucial to keep users tied to the Play Store. They don't want more Valves.
I don't think it is intended as passive aggressive language. Currently vendors wishing to distribute Google apps are specifically prevented (by their licence agreement) to also offer non-compatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets.
One of the Competition Commission requirements is to remove that restriction. That is a good thing, so vendors can freely decide whether they want to have two lines of phones, one with Google apps and one with a forked OS that works without Google apps (to compete with Apple -- presumably at a similarly premium price).
At the moment, Android phones are cheaper because Google don't charge for all the other bits that they bundle with their money-makers (Search and Chrome). A phone with FF and DDG instead would be more expensive because Google would be charging a licence fee for the other apps, and most importantly, the Play Store. Of course, you could have a phone without those and side-load all your apps. Most users aren't going to want something that doesn't just "work out of the box" though, or which uses a third-party app store that has nothing in it but tumbleweed.
"Most users aren't going to want something that doesn't just "work out of the box""
Semi-true: Totally depends on the price and the intended function of the phone.
Outside of teenagers, most of the software in any Android is just totally unnecessary spyware.
What you need to have is a phone, text messaging, a camera and possibly navigation and email. The rest? Unnecessary crap.
Outside of the phone, none of those need to be on-line all the time but somehow disconnecting Android from data/GPS is very, very difficult.
Obviously on purpose: Spying _must_ roll in real-time.
The ad revenue, even if it's undeliverable, is too much of an incentive for them to leave these out of Android. Neither would Google want to be seen to lose significant market share. The commercial plan is to make sure that the competition doesn't grow significantly. Other browsers, mail clients and mapping services are available, but Google would like theirs to be the default on the majority of users.
It'll be like the browser choice fiasco, they are so deeply baked into their services they can't untangle them. Lip service will be paid that's all. The slurp will continue unabated.
It depends on the Commission.
Remember that the Commission can say that Google's response is inadequate and fine them again. So if this is seen to be taking the piss - then it will get nixed as well.
Now normally I'd expect a major company to do its legals properly, and make sure that what it proposes meets with the relevant legislation. But this is Google we're talking about. The only reason the Commission fined them on specialist search and price comparison was that Google had proposed about 5 rememedies - all of which took the piss and didn't meet the legal requirements. And so a friendly Commission couldn't close the case - and then Juncker's Commission took over (which was much more German-influenced) and gave them a billion dollar kicking. So Google have history of being stupid.
"Juncker's Commission took over (which was much more German-influenced) and gave them a billion dollar kicking. So Google have history of being stupid."
Maybe Google made more than $1bil in the time they stalled the EU... if you believe the complete bolloxs coming from the complainants they must have been minting much more.
According to reports, Google pays nine billion dollars to Apple, every year, just to be the default search engine on iPhones. If that is true, then a one-time fine for half that amount for whatever they did wrong with Android seems like something they would take in stride.
they'll just find a way to hide the amount that calculates the percentage
Which is why GDPR, and I think fines for things like the subject of this story, can be based on global turnover - not profits, not profits in a specific subsidiary, but global turnover of the group.
While it's easy to move money around (the typical trick being to pay "brand licence fees" to a parent so that you make no profits) - it's impossible to hide turnover.