There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice.
Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles, but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice.
I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice.
What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it?
Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every cent of the fine!
> There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice.
Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom?
> The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it?
As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.
The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
> Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom?
It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.
I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play services include much more than just the Play Store and could very well be open source or at least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear undivided loyalty and submission to Google.
> It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms.
Android has a huge market dominance and Google looses some scope in their terms. I do think for competitors "following Google's conditions" is "not choice", e.g. you have to have the Play Store or you loose bitterly. Most/many good apps are only available through the Play Store.
A choice for me would be when a competitor has access to Play Store (of course with a fair compensation) without enabling Google at the same time to install many other unwanted/data grabbing apps/services.
> Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
Regarding closed source you misunderstood or I didn't write well. I was not angrily critizising (or yelling even) that Google Play Services is closed source, I wanted to express that one major part of Android is _already_ closed source when Pichai said "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms". -- (Besides, what good is open platforms when services come with heavy strings attached and, sometimes, are taken away in a blink because some algorithm decided...).
> So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.
I don't see why you're equating "governance" with "open source". You can have either one without the other.
And governance driven by a open community is also possible.
Also, the spyware you describe is only possible because of the security model employed. It's also possible to completely secure a platform so as to make these sorts of problems a thing of the past.
“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,”
Its as though Pichai thinks people actually want all of Google's shovelware on their devices. Why does Google try and sneakily update and re-enable their low quality Newsstand, Games and other apps that I literally do not want on my phone? Unbundling is the right move, even the Play Store should not be in the ROM itself, as when it gets updated you have no way to free the space that is used by the older version of the Play APK.
That is what infuriates me about bundled shovelware like <vendor specific apps>, Facebook, <carrier apps>, when those get updated or disabled, you still don't get to delete the original APK file. Your never getting that room on your storage back!
In the same way, you won't get back the space taken by recovery partition on a random laptop.
It's there for a reason - to get the device back to the same state as it left the factory. If you could remove random apks from there, that objective would be impossible.
So on Android devices, the /system partition is read-only intentionally. The space taken by it at least has a use during both runtime and recovery; traditionally the recovery is completely wasted space.
What I do mind thought, is the Android vendor's ability to prevent user disabling their apps, and abusing it. There's no reason why I should keep Samsung's (for example) showelware enabled.
Is losing 10, even 100mb something to get "infuriated" about when phones have 32-128gb now, and 100mb is like 1 video you took? It's not like this is Windows system tray software where your precious ram is being eaten up. It's disk space dude.
(Also being able to factory reset the phone is worth losing 100mb imo.)
They have the choice to build their own OS. The reason they don’t is clear, it’s too expensive. Google instead of charging money requires certain licensing conditions. If they truly want full control they could build it themselves but obviously they’re prefer google’s licensing model.
That's the current local optimum for phone manufacturers. The anti trust regulations exist, in part, to help prevent companies from forcing a local optimum that ensures no one ever tried something different, and thus forces the industries to keep improving.
If the OS was so good on it's own then google would not need these licensing terms to maintain market share.
I don't see this as a bad thing. There was nothing wrong with for-pay operating systems, like Symbian. A manufacturer could just buy a license, and pass the cost along to the consumer, without the consumer being coerced into signing up for services and handing over their private data. A Symbian license used to be $5 per unit. Google's Android model likely makes Google multiples of that over the lifetime of each unit, but somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free."
A simple exchange of currency for a product is a fantastic business model. Google has been instrumental in undermining it, with "free" products, and I wouldn't be sad to see that stop.
Agreed. Given the direction Google has gone with Android (and it sure looks like they're working hard to try to kill it off in favor of something they control completely like Chrome OS/Fuchsia/whatever) it would be great to inject some actual competition into the mobile marketplace. The current Apple/Google duopoly isn't getting it done for me.
> somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free."
Unfortunately, Google got away with telling a whopper of a lie in that they were building a free and open platform when behind the scenes they were doing anything but. Maybe it was true in the first year or two but hasn't been the case this decade (i.e. the ODM agreements prohibiting non-Google flavors of Android which are pretty much the reason it's so difficult to find non-Google flavored devices based on the 'open' Android platform. IIRC, Amazon only managed to get it done by going to the few contract manufacturers who weren't already making any Google authorized devices for anyone else.)
That's basically what the EU is demanding. The EU has handed down what is an anti-tying decision. "You can't tie Android to Google Search, because that prevents competition in Search."
Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee.
(It could also possibly fund itself from search revenue (like Firefox) and App Store fees, although the second one could be broken up by the EU too on anti-tying grounds)
It's no different from when Windows was prevented from tying Windows to Internet Explorer. It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.), but it also forced browsers to find independent business models.
Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee.
A licensing fee would be a valid and reasonable outcome. It probably can even work without making Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL).
The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly.
but it also forced browsers to find independent business models
It stopped Microsoft from preventing independent business models for browsers; it was just too late already for the commercial browser vendors of the time. And the current EU ruling will hopefully allow other mobile OS developers (or startups) to compete on more equal grounds.
Of course we still have the network effect of Google Play, featuring a market dominance over Android apps and Android users. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another future EU ruling requiring Google to unbundle Google Play from all but technical requirements, possibly allowing users to legally get access to Google Play on AOSP-based devices, or using alternative clients.
> The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly.
I agree with this and it's a good thing, but where does it ends? When can we say this is another market, don't touch it?
Qualcomm is pretty much the standard on cellphone processor. Their processor include a GPU, called Adreno. I want to manufacture GPU for phone. By including it on their processor and not offering it without one, they essentially force their buyer to ignore my offering. Are they trying to illegally retain monopoly over GPU for phones? CPU and GPU are 2 different market (desktop PC prove this pretty clearly).
> Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL).
Absolutely. Something akin to https://licensezero.com might fit the bill. There’s plenty of innovation left to do in the space of source code licensing.
> It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.)
MS all but ceasing development on IE after version 6 is what opened competition in browsers, not any government action. Remember from IE4 to 6 before Firefox was released Internet Explorer really was the best browser out there. MS used their Windows monopoly to aid distribution and their huge piles of cash to make it free (vs paid-for Netscape), but it wasn't like it was crap software that was only being used because MS force-fed it to everybody. At least not until they (probably intentionally) let it wither and die and Firefox and then Chrome ate their lunch.
Was about to disagree but on closer reading I agree.
I'll still say the browser choice thing was a good thing as it spread the message, and helped get a critical mass of users to use other browser so that web developers had to design cross browser solutions for a while until they got lazy again and started only designing for Chrome.
It was intentional, the even disbanded the development team. Even in the mid 90s it was obvious to everyone that web apps would be the future. If web apps were the future then win32 didn't matter and their grip on computing would be lost. IMO the mistake they made was not doubling down and turning IE into the next windows. Instead they tried to bring win32 to the web.
IE was terrible for anyone not using Windows. They encouraged ActiveX and didn't keep to web specs.
Imagine if they'd kept their monopoly and we'd all had to stay on Vista and Windows Mobile because it was the only way to browse the web. Flash would still be a thing. The iPhone could have failed because it couldn't load most websites. We might still have keypads on our phones.
I used other browsers on Windows before Internet Explorer ever existed, and even on Windows versions that came with IE in the box, either it was the age where we still used Netscape Navigator CDs to install it (and all your mime type handlers would change from IE to Navigator), or later or, I used IE to just download installers for other browsers.
It didn't open competition at all, it just made Microsoft pay for what every OS does today: it includes a browser by default. OSX, iOS, Android, multiple game consoles, and even some TVs.
They got punished for innovation, and no one else had to pay the fine for copying their behavior.
Microsoft wasn't punished for bundling the browser with the OS.
They were punished because they did that while IE and MS both had major market positions.
The game consoles are split between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, you have choice there. OSX and iOS are only shipped on Mac devices which don't have major marketshares either.
When you have a majority marketshare then you can't do what you want, there is rules. Especially when it comes to abusing your major position to leverage other positions (Sony and Nintendo are hardly pushing their browser products)
Having OEMs pay a licensing fee to Google seems better than having Google stiffle competition by bundling Google Play and Search and requiring OEMs to not ship alternative non-Google AOSP products.
Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee.
And that’s a good thing. I prefer simple transactions. I give a company money and they give me stuff. It’s very transparent business model.
Yeah, that's why I'm favor of this decision. I think it's reasonable for regulators to have an anti-tying bias and make companies prove that the tying is somehow necessary. Because the alternative to tying (as you say) is a more open, competitive, and transparent "cash for stuff" market.
But then Android wouldn't be open source anymore. That would be a big shame and it's bizarre to see HN commenters arguing after so many years of shitting on things like Play Services that, in effect, they want Android to become entirely proprietary.
It'd also send a powerful signal to lots of other companies - don't create open platforms monetized through additional services. As so much open source code is funded by companies, that'd be a huge blow.
> The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of Android forks:
In particular, 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);
• 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").
Sure, and Pichai is saying it doesn't make good business sense for Google to spend a lot of money developing a mobile OS and then give it away for free unless they can use it to push their other products, like search. Google's business model was to give away the OS for free, but require Google apps to be bundled (in exchange for play store access).
So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.
That's the thing. The EU is not trying to tell Google how to make money from android. It's only saying it can't force installation of search and chrome. It's upto Google to find another means of making money that won't exploit their dominance in other markets
That may be the argument. Yet it was considered by the commission & dismissed as there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts.
Yeah, I'd say this is wrong. His direct quote is [1]:
> Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. 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, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers.
"Easily disable or delete"? Not to mention the lack of deletion on a lot of these (...any? I don't recall if I've seen any with deletion), I don't always even find a hard way to disable or delete preinstalled apps on phones... unless we're talking about booting custom bootloaders and wiping your phone etc.
Not just that you can't truly uninstall them without rooting the phone, but on my last android phone you couldn't even move Google's apps to the SD card to at least save some space.
If you allow a user to delete an app entirely like Chrome, then what do you do if they decide to factory reset their phone? The whole point of disabling instead of deleting is that it for all intents and purposes isn't there, but if a user factory resets they aren't screwed without a web browser or map application.
> If you allow a user to delete an app entirely like Chrome, then what do you do if they decide to factory reset their phone? The whole point of disabling instead of deleting is that it for all intents and purposes isn't there, but if a user factory resets they aren't screwed without a web browser or map application.
You could remove the app from the system while keeping it in the restoration image. Same way as how you can uninstall PC crapware when you buy a new one but it's still in the image in the recovery partition should you choose to factory reset.
It creeps up very quickly once you start installing site-wrapper apps. I consciously try to avoid those, but even a quick audit of my apps shows I have at least a few:
- Youtube
- Hacker News
- Reddit
- XDA-Developers
- Amazon
- My banking app
Pretty much all of those could just be a tab in my browser, but the convenience of properly-formatted text, easy searching, replying, etc pulls one towards the native app.
OEMs and carriers often put "their" (the Facebook app bundled on some Samsung phones can't be deleted, only disabled) apps on the system side of the fence...
A typical person installing 50 apps themselves is utter nonsense also. I know zero people who have done this, and it would be utterly opposite iOS behavior (where most people install 0-1 apps per month).
Maybe there are bots who install and then uninstall many apps. Those used to be fairly prevalent.
> A typical person installing 50 apps themselves is utter nonsense also. I know zero people who have done this, and it would be utterly opposite iOS behavior (where most people install 0-1 apps per month).
I just counted, and I have 128 apps on my Android phone (none are games). Some of those were pre-installed, but I installed the vast majority of them.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is something where iOS & Android users are opposite one another: iPhones are smart phones, whereas Android phones are computers with calling capabilities. The whole point of iOS is to communicate; the whole point of Android is to be a computer which fits in your pocket.
EU's charges are a sham. I hope Google gives the EU regulators exactly what they deserve:
Google should outright stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make the OS closed source (like Apple), disable side-loading apps (like Apple), purposefully make the mobile browser incompatible with W3C standards (like Apple) in an effort to drive developers & consumers to the app store, and slap a minimum price tag of $1000 on Pixel phones (like Apple).
Maybe then, the true value of choice will sink in.
I get your point and I know it’s a great way to reap those free internet points, but you’re being a little disingenuous with the Apple hate here. Apple never licensed out iOS to the EU or anywhere else. The kernel of iOS is open source. I think it’s a stretch to conclude that Apple purposefully makes their browser incompatible with web standards in any meaningful way to drive App Store revenue. And the minimum price of an iPhone is nowhere near $1000. They start at $350 retail.
I get your point, and deifying Apple with falsehoods is indeed a great way to score internet points. But touting Apple fandom as facts is disingenuous here.
> Apple never licensed out iOS to the EU or anywhere else:
I never implied it did.
> The kernel of iOS is open source.
Please link a ROM to load on my iPhone. I can give you a hundred for any popular Android device.
> I think it’s a stretch to conclude that Apple purposefully makes their browser incompatible with web standards in any meaningful way to drive App Store revenue.
There's ample evidence to the contrary, and statements from within Apple
> They start at $350 retail.
No - you can't confuse carrier subsidies and contracts with price.
After all that effort to keep manufacturers from using alternative OSes, they should now hand them a strong reason to invest a lot in those? Doesn't sound very logical to me.
A good OS does not a win in the marketplace guarantee. Windows phone is a case in point.
BTW - the suggested response is indeed a logical reaction to EU's illogical charges. True choice is allowing phones @ $150 - $1500 to exist, customized for every customer segment in the marketplace. True choice is the ability to tinker with the underlying OS and ROM. True choice is the ability to side-load apps despite __insert_agency_here__ not blessing it. And Android empowers those choices.
Apple is not a monopolist (24% market share). Being the biggest operating system comes with responsibilities (in EU). If Google would pull Android away from Europe, other parties would take over as most consumers only buy less expensive phones. Microsoft for example would love to have this market.
I second this! The reasoning behind the decision is spelled out in plain english. I encourage everyone to read the EU decision (takes ~3 min) and form your own opinion.
This passage is an example:
Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However,
dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful
market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they
are dominant or in separate markets.
Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim
of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
1. Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps.
2. Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search.
3. Illegal obstruction of distribution of competing Android OS forks.
They are downright lying. The animation on Pichai's talk tries to present removing the google chrome icon from the main screen as "uninstalling" it. Do they really think people are idiots?
Readit News
There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the Google conditions. This is not choice.
Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles, but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice.
I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice.
What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it?
Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every cent of the fine!
Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that "following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The alternative is something maintained by whom?
> The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some Android apps, is it?
As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.
The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that there are unpure components is wrong" -- is kind of shameful. If you care so much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.
I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play services include much more than just the Play Store and could very well be open source or at least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear undivided loyalty and submission to Google.
Android has a huge market dominance and Google looses some scope in their terms. I do think for competitors "following Google's conditions" is "not choice", e.g. you have to have the Play Store or you loose bitterly. Most/many good apps are only available through the Play Store.
A choice for me would be when a competitor has access to Play Store (of course with a fair compensation) without enabling Google at the same time to install many other unwanted/data grabbing apps/services.
> Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.
Regarding closed source you misunderstood or I didn't write well. I was not angrily critizising (or yelling even) that Google Play Services is closed source, I wanted to express that one major part of Android is _already_ closed source when Pichai said "sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms". -- (Besides, what good is open platforms when services come with heavy strings attached and, sometimes, are taken away in a blink because some algorithm decided...).
I don't see why you're equating "governance" with "open source". You can have either one without the other.
And governance driven by a open community is also possible.
Also, the spyware you describe is only possible because of the security model employed. It's also possible to completely secure a platform so as to make these sorts of problems a thing of the past.
Dead Comment
Its as though Pichai thinks people actually want all of Google's shovelware on their devices. Why does Google try and sneakily update and re-enable their low quality Newsstand, Games and other apps that I literally do not want on my phone? Unbundling is the right move, even the Play Store should not be in the ROM itself, as when it gets updated you have no way to free the space that is used by the older version of the Play APK.
That is what infuriates me about bundled shovelware like <vendor specific apps>, Facebook, <carrier apps>, when those get updated or disabled, you still don't get to delete the original APK file. Your never getting that room on your storage back!
It's there for a reason - to get the device back to the same state as it left the factory. If you could remove random apks from there, that objective would be impossible.
So on Android devices, the /system partition is read-only intentionally. The space taken by it at least has a use during both runtime and recovery; traditionally the recovery is completely wasted space.
What I do mind thought, is the Android vendor's ability to prevent user disabling their apps, and abusing it. There's no reason why I should keep Samsung's (for example) showelware enabled.
(Also being able to factory reset the phone is worth losing 100mb imo.)
- Just like on WP, you cannot set some things to open in other browsers.
- No extension support, because they know perfectly well what many people would install first, an add blocker.
Everything else that follows is based off of your choice to use Android.
There are consequences to your choices. You don't have a line-item veto, after the fact, on contract terms.
If you want Google to stop open sourcing Android, this is how you do it.
Then you will lose the choice to have Android at all, unless Google is the provider, possibly with Samsung or Jolla as the OEM.
Deleted Comment
If the OS was so good on it's own then google would not need these licensing terms to maintain market share.
Deleted Comment
A simple exchange of currency for a product is a fantastic business model. Google has been instrumental in undermining it, with "free" products, and I wouldn't be sad to see that stop.
> somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free."
Unfortunately, Google got away with telling a whopper of a lie in that they were building a free and open platform when behind the scenes they were doing anything but. Maybe it was true in the first year or two but hasn't been the case this decade (i.e. the ODM agreements prohibiting non-Google flavors of Android which are pretty much the reason it's so difficult to find non-Google flavored devices based on the 'open' Android platform. IIRC, Amazon only managed to get it done by going to the few contract manufacturers who weren't already making any Google authorized devices for anyone else.)
These days I feel like that happens regardless of whether the "customer" is paying or not. Any compelling reason to believe otherwise?
They still can't bundle search with operating system. The same way Microsoft couldn't bundle IE with Windows.
At-least you can't do it when you have a dominating market position. (just dominating, monopoly is not necessary)
Dead Comment
Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee.
(It could also possibly fund itself from search revenue (like Firefox) and App Store fees, although the second one could be broken up by the EU too on anti-tying grounds)
It's no different from when Windows was prevented from tying Windows to Internet Explorer. It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.), but it also forced browsers to find independent business models.
A licensing fee would be a valid and reasonable outcome. It probably can even work without making Android closed-source, by choosing the licenses accordingly or maybe have some kind of early-access or migration-support agreements (IANAL).
The main point is that Google is using a monopoly in one market to retain a monopoly in another market, and this is illegal. As far as I'm reading the press release, Google is not barred from developing and offering Android for free, if they wish so - they are only disallowed to abuse their monopoly.
but it also forced browsers to find independent business models
It stopped Microsoft from preventing independent business models for browsers; it was just too late already for the commercial browser vendors of the time. And the current EU ruling will hopefully allow other mobile OS developers (or startups) to compete on more equal grounds.
Of course we still have the network effect of Google Play, featuring a market dominance over Android apps and Android users. I wouldn't be too surprised to see another future EU ruling requiring Google to unbundle Google Play from all but technical requirements, possibly allowing users to legally get access to Google Play on AOSP-based devices, or using alternative clients.
I agree with this and it's a good thing, but where does it ends? When can we say this is another market, don't touch it?
Qualcomm is pretty much the standard on cellphone processor. Their processor include a GPU, called Adreno. I want to manufacture GPU for phone. By including it on their processor and not offering it without one, they essentially force their buyer to ignore my offering. Are they trying to illegally retain monopoly over GPU for phones? CPU and GPU are 2 different market (desktop PC prove this pretty clearly).
Absolutely. Something akin to https://licensezero.com might fit the bill. There’s plenty of innovation left to do in the space of source code licensing.
MS all but ceasing development on IE after version 6 is what opened competition in browsers, not any government action. Remember from IE4 to 6 before Firefox was released Internet Explorer really was the best browser out there. MS used their Windows monopoly to aid distribution and their huge piles of cash to make it free (vs paid-for Netscape), but it wasn't like it was crap software that was only being used because MS force-fed it to everybody. At least not until they (probably intentionally) let it wither and die and Firefox and then Chrome ate their lunch.
I'll still say the browser choice thing was a good thing as it spread the message, and helped get a critical mass of users to use other browser so that web developers had to design cross browser solutions for a while until they got lazy again and started only designing for Chrome.
It was intentional, the even disbanded the development team. Even in the mid 90s it was obvious to everyone that web apps would be the future. If web apps were the future then win32 didn't matter and their grip on computing would be lost. IMO the mistake they made was not doubling down and turning IE into the next windows. Instead they tried to bring win32 to the web.
I used other browsers on Windows before Internet Explorer ever existed, and even on Windows versions that came with IE in the box, either it was the age where we still used Netscape Navigator CDs to install it (and all your mime type handlers would change from IE to Navigator), or later or, I used IE to just download installers for other browsers.
It didn't open competition at all, it just made Microsoft pay for what every OS does today: it includes a browser by default. OSX, iOS, Android, multiple game consoles, and even some TVs.
They got punished for innovation, and no one else had to pay the fine for copying their behavior.
They were punished because they did that while IE and MS both had major market positions.
The game consoles are split between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, you have choice there. OSX and iOS are only shipped on Mac devices which don't have major marketshares either.
When you have a majority marketshare then you can't do what you want, there is rules. Especially when it comes to abusing your major position to leverage other positions (Sony and Nintendo are hardly pushing their browser products)
Having OEMs pay a licensing fee to Google seems better than having Google stiffle competition by bundling Google Play and Search and requiring OEMs to not ship alternative non-Google AOSP products.
And that’s a good thing. I prefer simple transactions. I give a company money and they give me stuff. It’s very transparent business model.
It'd also send a powerful signal to lots of other companies - don't create open platforms monetized through additional services. As so much open source code is funded by companies, that'd be a huge blow.
That's how things were before IE came around in the first place.
> The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of Android forks:
In particular, 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);
• 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").
So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.
You cannot remove the pre-installed apps, in my experience, only the subsequent updates to those apps.
> Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. 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, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers.
"Easily disable or delete"? Not to mention the lack of deletion on a lot of these (...any? I don't recall if I've seen any with deletion), I don't always even find a hard way to disable or delete preinstalled apps on phones... unless we're talking about booting custom bootloaders and wiping your phone etc.
[1] https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
Gear icon -> Apps -> select a preinstalled app, you have options to "Disable" and to "Force stop" the app.
What you can't is to remove the app and reclaim the storage it's taking.
At least so it looks on an un-rooted Sony phone running Android 7.0 that I have before me.
So factory reset should show a view of select your appstore (Google, F-Droid, etc). Once that's installed you're ready to go.
You could remove the app from the system while keeping it in the restoration image. Same way as how you can uninstall PC crapware when you buy a new one but it's still in the image in the recovery partition should you choose to factory reset.
- Youtube
- Hacker News
- Reddit
- XDA-Developers
- Amazon
- My banking app
Pretty much all of those could just be a tab in my browser, but the convenience of properly-formatted text, easy searching, replying, etc pulls one towards the native app.
You can change defaults and sideload apps on android, which makes it much more permissible than the rest of maker i.e iOS.
Maybe there are bots who install and then uninstall many apps. Those used to be fairly prevalent.
I just counted, and I have 128 apps on my Android phone (none are games). Some of those were pre-installed, but I installed the vast majority of them.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is something where iOS & Android users are opposite one another: iPhones are smart phones, whereas Android phones are computers with calling capabilities. The whole point of iOS is to communicate; the whole point of Android is to be a computer which fits in your pocket.
Google should outright stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make the OS closed source (like Apple), disable side-loading apps (like Apple), purposefully make the mobile browser incompatible with W3C standards (like Apple) in an effort to drive developers & consumers to the app store, and slap a minimum price tag of $1000 on Pixel phones (like Apple).
Maybe then, the true value of choice will sink in.
> Apple never licensed out iOS to the EU or anywhere else: I never implied it did.
> The kernel of iOS is open source. Please link a ROM to load on my iPhone. I can give you a hundred for any popular Android device.
> I think it’s a stretch to conclude that Apple purposefully makes their browser incompatible with web standards in any meaningful way to drive App Store revenue. There's ample evidence to the contrary, and statements from within Apple
> They start at $350 retail. No - you can't confuse carrier subsidies and contracts with price.
BTW - the suggested response is indeed a logical reaction to EU's illogical charges. True choice is allowing phones @ $150 - $1500 to exist, customized for every customer segment in the marketplace. True choice is the ability to tinker with the underlying OS and ROM. True choice is the ability to side-load apps despite __insert_agency_here__ not blessing it. And Android empowers those choices.
they're already doing a hell of a lot to drive consumers and developers to their app store. how much worse can that get?
Deleted Comment
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
Googles behaviour is indefensible
This passage is an example: