Google Faces E.U. Antitrust Charges Over Android Apps(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Google Faces E.U. Antitrust Charges Over Android Apps
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-eu-antitrust.html
6 comments
The charges are claimed to be related to defaults. As such the problem isn't that the apps can't be replaced (by the tiny fraction of users who understand and are capable of doing so), it's that the vast majority of users stick with the pre-installed defaults and google controls those.
As far as I can tell there is nothing in google's terms of service that relate to defaults. How do I know this? Because Samsung replaces every app I can think of with theirs.
- launcher - web browser - mail - calendar - keyboard - SMS/MMS texting app
Not to mention the entire "skin" of the operating system including added and removed functionality.
Samsung even has their own app store on the phone.
All of the above apps are very much the default for their type (when such a concept exists) and in some cases, like email and calendaring, you can't set another program as the default (at least not through normal consumer friendly means).
What "default" are you actually referring to?
- launcher - web browser - mail - calendar - keyboard - SMS/MMS texting app
Not to mention the entire "skin" of the operating system including added and removed functionality.
Samsung even has their own app store on the phone.
All of the above apps are very much the default for their type (when such a concept exists) and in some cases, like email and calendaring, you can't set another program as the default (at least not through normal consumer friendly means).
What "default" are you actually referring to?
Google pressured Samsung two years ago:
http://recode.net/2014/01/29/after-google-pressure-samsung-w...
http://recode.net/2014/01/29/after-google-pressure-samsung-w...
>This is literally a repeat of Microsoft Windows shipping a browser and a media player , where any browser and media player could be used instead.
The main issue was that you couldn't uninstall or disable IE, and due to microsoft's dominance in the market the EU felt it should be possible to do so.
The main issue was that you couldn't uninstall or disable IE, and due to microsoft's dominance in the market the EU felt it should be possible to do so.
Except you can never uninstall or disable MSIE period because the actual browser canvas element is depended on by both Microsoft and non-Microsoft apps and is a core service of the OS. Modern Windows Update, modern Help, Outlook/Outlook Express, anything that uses ActiveX, and third party browsers that just wrap Trident wouldn't work.
That's like telling Apple they have to unbundle Safari, then breaking all the apps that depend on the Webkit framework.... which is a shitload of apps.
The only thing N/KN editions of Windows do is force you to download the Windows Media Player if you choose to use it, and simply unhides the MSIE icon in your Start menu if you choose to enable it. And as for Windows Media Player, N/KN doesn't disable things like DirectShow and Media Foundation, which Windows Media Player is just a fancy front end for.
It was a waste of both EU and US money for our respective DoJs to have sued. Microsoft didn't stop you from using other browsers, and allowed any app to be assigned to htm/html file associations and http/https/ftp URI scheme associations, even back in Win98 when they introduced that weird "Active Desktop" shit (a Trident canvas element as a background image on your desktop, it was weird but interesting), Microsoft never stopped you from downloading Netscape Navigator and using it as your default browser.
Windows was the first OS to have a browser by default, and the second OS to have a media player by default (Quicktime came before the original Media Player in Windows 3.x, which used DShow's predecessor, Video for Windows). In fact, Apple sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen source code from Quicktime, and Microsoft settled over it.
Notice the EU hasn't sued Apple for having a bundled media player first (since 1991, or 25 years ago), nor having a bundled browser (since 2003, or about 13 years ago, or about half way between MSIE 6 and 7). Also please note that the EU antitrust case was in 2004.
Why is the EU so protectionist towards Apple? It isn't their company, they have no more interest over Apple than they would Microsoft or Google, all three are American and all three have about the same amount of involvement in the EU for local services.
That's like telling Apple they have to unbundle Safari, then breaking all the apps that depend on the Webkit framework.... which is a shitload of apps.
The only thing N/KN editions of Windows do is force you to download the Windows Media Player if you choose to use it, and simply unhides the MSIE icon in your Start menu if you choose to enable it. And as for Windows Media Player, N/KN doesn't disable things like DirectShow and Media Foundation, which Windows Media Player is just a fancy front end for.
It was a waste of both EU and US money for our respective DoJs to have sued. Microsoft didn't stop you from using other browsers, and allowed any app to be assigned to htm/html file associations and http/https/ftp URI scheme associations, even back in Win98 when they introduced that weird "Active Desktop" shit (a Trident canvas element as a background image on your desktop, it was weird but interesting), Microsoft never stopped you from downloading Netscape Navigator and using it as your default browser.
Windows was the first OS to have a browser by default, and the second OS to have a media player by default (Quicktime came before the original Media Player in Windows 3.x, which used DShow's predecessor, Video for Windows). In fact, Apple sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen source code from Quicktime, and Microsoft settled over it.
Notice the EU hasn't sued Apple for having a bundled media player first (since 1991, or 25 years ago), nor having a bundled browser (since 2003, or about 13 years ago, or about half way between MSIE 6 and 7). Also please note that the EU antitrust case was in 2004.
Why is the EU so protectionist towards Apple? It isn't their company, they have no more interest over Apple than they would Microsoft or Google, all three are American and all three have about the same amount of involvement in the EU for local services.
The EU could do us all a favour and get Microsoft actually respect the privacy of it's customers by properly allowing them to fully turn off the "phone home" stuff it has going on.
Hmm, interesting that Google, who allows 3rd party markets and non-Google signed app installs (like Amazon, F-Droid, Aptoide, etc) is getting hit with this.
Perhaps it's more related to stock Google Apps they're shipping with Android devices, similar to the MS bundling IE anti-trust cases? Google's Android apps are pretty great and having them ship on devices for free is probably a pretty big killer of competition, including these apps may even be a requirement to be allowed to ship play store.
Perhaps it's more related to stock Google Apps they're shipping with Android devices, similar to the MS bundling IE anti-trust cases? Google's Android apps are pretty great and having them ship on devices for free is probably a pretty big killer of competition, including these apps may even be a requirement to be allowed to ship play store.
Because Aptoide is a European company and it launched the complaint which started this whole thing.
This absurdity happened because Google isn't outright blocking 3rd party apps and app stores outright.
It does has some restrictions which resulted in Google Play not being available on Kindle devices, and market apps can't be hosted on the Play Store but it leaves them enough room to actually be some what viable which means that companies exist that can cry foul.
This is basically a case of give them a finger and they take the whole hand.
This absurdity happened because Google isn't outright blocking 3rd party apps and app stores outright.
It does has some restrictions which resulted in Google Play not being available on Kindle devices, and market apps can't be hosted on the Play Store but it leaves them enough room to actually be some what viable which means that companies exist that can cry foul.
This is basically a case of give them a finger and they take the whole hand.
Surely Apple is going to face the same charge?
I doubt it. You and I are both going to get heavily downvoted for this by the devout Apple fanatics, but it's unreasonable that Google is held to a much higher standard than Apple.
Google gives away the OS for free (speech and beer), allows competition on the devices, but requires bundling of its app with its store (which has competitors).
Apple not only bundles the apps, it explicitly locks out competitors with code, forbids competitors in their agreements with customers and developers, and IIRC forbids developers who write for its platform to also put the same app on any competing app store (which again are forbidden by contract and locked out with code).
Google gives away the OS for free (speech and beer), allows competition on the devices, but requires bundling of its app with its store (which has competitors).
Apple not only bundles the apps, it explicitly locks out competitors with code, forbids competitors in their agreements with customers and developers, and IIRC forbids developers who write for its platform to also put the same app on any competing app store (which again are forbidden by contract and locked out with code).
It goes further than this. Android, being free software, can be used without any Google-proprietary code by anyone who so wishes. Running a 'Google-free' phone is not only possible, but practiced by many - without any repercussions from Google as the code is, after all, free. If the user so requires, Google-proprietary apps can be installed on demand, removed on demand, replaced or updated or whatever - under control of the user.
In jail terms, Google puts its users in a light security facility, Apple users are locked up on Alcatraz.
As to why the EU plans this action on Google (first) is a good question. It is clear that the wheels of justice are seldom round, and greased in strange ways...
In jail terms, Google puts its users in a light security facility, Apple users are locked up on Alcatraz.
As to why the EU plans this action on Google (first) is a good question. It is clear that the wheels of justice are seldom round, and greased in strange ways...
I won't downvote you and I agree that Android is way more open, but I understand antitrust to be about monopolies. I don't think Apple is anywhere close to a monopoly position with iOS in any market, and I'd be surprised if they're above 50% in any European market.
Apple has a 'local monopoly' in that it is the only choice for those who have bought into the iOS (and, to a lesser extent, OSX) family. Combine this with the fact that many schools use iPads and the situation soon becomes clear: in some segments Apple has a remarkably high presence.
Now you can say 'but anyone who buys Apple devices does so with the knowledge that these restrictions apply', and that is certainly true. The same can however be said for anyone who buys an Android device, with the added factor of being able to select alternatives for those Google apps and services.
In other words, if the EU thinks Google should be prosecuted, then so should Apple, for all the same reasons - only more so.
Now you can say 'but anyone who buys Apple devices does so with the knowledge that these restrictions apply', and that is certainly true. The same can however be said for anyone who buys an Android device, with the added factor of being able to select alternatives for those Google apps and services.
In other words, if the EU thinks Google should be prosecuted, then so should Apple, for all the same reasons - only more so.
Can you define a market that Apple has a monopoly in that a regulator should investigate? You've identified current iOS users, but surely that's circular? I don't doubt that iOS market share is super high in some segments, but do any of them constitute a regulated market?
In education the last I heard was Chromebooks are at over 50% of devices in US schools, and that's against Windows and iOS. I'm sceptical Apple have a monopoly in education except "tablets in schools" which again doesn't seem like a whole market.
In education the last I heard was Chromebooks are at over 50% of devices in US schools, and that's against Windows and iOS. I'm sceptical Apple have a monopoly in education except "tablets in schools" which again doesn't seem like a whole market.
Identifying iOS users as a target for Apple's monopoly is no more circular than identifying Google-branded (ie. Nexus et al) Android users as a target for a Google monopoly. Non-Google branded Android can, and often does use non-Google apps and stores so that segment can not be considered to be monopolised by Google. In practice the same is true for Google-branded Android devices as it is possible - and not all that hard - to swap Google apps for others.
As to whether I think anyone should investigate Apple and Google I'd say 'no', but that is not what this is about. I don't think Google should be investigated for the stated reasons, but if the EU insists on investigating something I claim there is at least as much ground to investigate Apple as there is to do so to Google.
Where I live - Sweden - Apple does have a large presence in schools. The situation with regard to IT in Swedish schools seems to be that there is money, but no plan. This makes it possible for 'driven' people to steer their local community in the direction they deem to be the preferable. Many of these 'driven' people have a marked preference for Apple products.
As to whether I think anyone should investigate Apple and Google I'd say 'no', but that is not what this is about. I don't think Google should be investigated for the stated reasons, but if the EU insists on investigating something I claim there is at least as much ground to investigate Apple as there is to do so to Google.
Where I live - Sweden - Apple does have a large presence in schools. The situation with regard to IT in Swedish schools seems to be that there is money, but no plan. This makes it possible for 'driven' people to steer their local community in the direction they deem to be the preferable. Many of these 'driven' people have a marked preference for Apple products.
I'm not so sure that Google actually does have the same circular monopoly power as Apple, because really it's just about lock-in and - from experience - moving from Android to iOS is really easy. You don't lose any data and everything is cross platform by default. Going the other way by contrast, you'd have to deliberately move things into third party cross platform apps.
I'm also not sure whether that would count as a monopoly if they did have sufficient lock-in, given their vast market share - as a hypothetical. I guess probably yes.
I'd agree that neither should be investigated, but I do disagree that Apple have as much grounds to be - they just don't have the market share.
I was probably too simplistic on education, it's a difficult issue for sure. My ICT teacher in school used to have a pretty big budget and spend it on toys because he got Windows hardware/software so ridiculously cheap. Microsoft had made the ICT curriculum in the UK entirely based on learning how to use their software and apps. All their stuff can be obtained between free and really cheap for students from school to university, and it's pretty much always the standard expectation to use it. And then you have iPads and Chromebooks taking over, probably not running Microsoft apps and probably like you said with no real plan. It's interesting and probably broken, but there's probably no monopolistic player there.
I'm also not sure whether that would count as a monopoly if they did have sufficient lock-in, given their vast market share - as a hypothetical. I guess probably yes.
I'd agree that neither should be investigated, but I do disagree that Apple have as much grounds to be - they just don't have the market share.
I was probably too simplistic on education, it's a difficult issue for sure. My ICT teacher in school used to have a pretty big budget and spend it on toys because he got Windows hardware/software so ridiculously cheap. Microsoft had made the ICT curriculum in the UK entirely based on learning how to use their software and apps. All their stuff can be obtained between free and really cheap for students from school to university, and it's pretty much always the standard expectation to use it. And then you have iPads and Chromebooks taking over, probably not running Microsoft apps and probably like you said with no real plan. It's interesting and probably broken, but there's probably no monopolistic player there.
Apple doesn't enjoy the same market share, actually in some European countries the alternative to Android is Windows Phone for the majority of population.
[deleted]
"and consumers have the last word about which apps they want to use on their devices."
Is this true in the EU? Do the carriers and hardware manufacturers not bundle in a bunch of total garbage that you aren't allowed to remove (sometimes you can disable it but like I want any of this crap from LG)?
> Do the carriers and hardware manufacturers not bundle in a bunch of total garbage that you aren't allowed to remove
I can tell you that they don't do it in most European countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it in a few places (like the UK).
I can tell you that they don't do it in most European countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it in a few places (like the UK).
FWIW in Poland at least some of the top 4 carriers force their bloatware on your Android phone, with no way to uninstall (I haven't tried rooting the phone though).
The latest in EU tech money grabs - those failed banks aren't going to pay for themselves.
I'm waiting for the antitrust violation launched by developers.
With arbitrary reasons their apps get removed, sometimes surprisingly brazen feature copying by the store owner, and lack of humans or any transparency in the appeal process.
With arbitrary reasons their apps get removed, sometimes surprisingly brazen feature copying by the store owner, and lack of humans or any transparency in the appeal process.
Not only that, Google provides APIs in newer versions of Androids that allow third party apps to provide all this stuff. When installing apps that provide those services, they just need to use the APIs to integrate into the system.
Such as, I have OneDrive installed, and Google Drive and OneDrive appear as accessible from any app that uses the new file loader API (which was introduced in ... 4.x?). Google is working with Microsoft to allow Cortana to be a full replacement for Google Now's "Okay Google" trigger, including "Hey Cortana" trigger while sleeping (on phones that support that).
I can also install any office suite I want without any API support required, I can also install third party music players (and get full music player API support and Chromecast support for players that support it), third party... anything. Even a third party app store.
From what I can tell, this is all about the Google Now launcher supporting Google Search only. You can install any launcher you want. Google Now cannot integrate into other search engines because of THEIR lack of an API, not because Google doesn't want to (I mean, they don't, but it's not their fault).
The EU needs to step off and stop ruining company's products. This is literally a repeat of Microsoft Windows shipping a browser and a media player , where any browser and media player could be used instead. The EU at the time, apparently, could not understand you could have multiple apps installed that do the same thing, and file types and URL types have associations that can be changed by the user.
The EU is dangerously clueless about technology.
And if they're not going after Apple for the same charge, where they won't let you use third party browsers on iOS, or third party app stores, or music players, or whatever, then they're just untrustworthy idiots that have no clue how the world works.