Google has detailed its response to the EU Android antitrust ruling, and going forward, Google’s going to change quite a few things about how it distributes Android in the European Union.
First, we’re updating the compatibility agreements with mobile device makers that set out how Android is used to develop smartphones and tablets. Going forward, Android partners wishing to distribute Google apps may also build non-compatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets for the European Economic Area (EEA).
Second, device manufacturers will be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser. Since the pre-installation of Google Search and Chrome together with our other apps helped us fund the development and free distribution of Android, we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA. Android will remain free and open source.
Third, we will offer separate licenses to the Google Search app and to Chrome.
While I doubt we’ll see a sudden increase in competing platforms, these changes do make it possible for device makers to offer devices that are less tied to Google alongside their regular Google Android devices. I can imagine OEMs offering devices that run Microsoft’s growing suite of Android applications, which would be a good thing for competition.
For all of Europe, no one will use Chrome once they figure out Firefox mobile and others have had them for years. They’ll have to add a real one, or give up. Hopefully any such change gets sent back to the U.S.
Had what?
Adblockers, as far as I can tell.
Read titles
So it seems that Google has decided to “allow” handset makers to include alternative platforms, but require them to pay for the privilege.
This is now exactly the situation Microsoft were found to be anti-competitive back in the day. Free to use if you you remain locked in, but costs a fee if you want to produce an alternative. How has the EU allowed this?
As if anyone wants to make “non-compatible” devices for the European Economic Area. The only region that needs non-compatible aka non-Google devices is China. This ruling could have made a difference 6 years ago when Google’s Play stuff wasn’t so deeply woven into the Android OS, but in 2018 even third-party apps like CityMapper won’t work without Play Services (for example) because they use Google’s location services.
This is also why iPhones are so coveted in China by anyone who can afford them. The “Android OS” the Chinese get is different to ours, and so is the Android ecosystem they have access to.
Edited 2018-10-17 13:13 UTC
From the linked blog post this isn’t clear to me. My reading is that in the EEA the Play Services licensing agreement will require payment independent of whether Search+Chrome is included. So essentially handset manufacturers can pay for maps, Play store, etc., but Chrome and search are entirely decoupled.
Given they’re also now allowing manufacturers to sell alternatives at the same time, this would seem like a good outcome, especially for Yandex, Amazon, microG and the like. Except it’s clear from the wording that Google will still restrict what manufacturers can do in other markets, so this may not be enough to truly make a difference.
At least Google aren’t denying that they have exclusivity clauses in their agreements any more.
From the title: “Google details how it will comply with the EC’s Android ruling ”
The EU hasn’t allowed this (yet), this is just a suggestion from Google.
Currently you can build your own “pure AOSP-Android”, like Amazon and “china-phones” do and you don’t have to worry about special Google-licenses* for Android.
You can also use “Google-Android”, so you can include the Play-Store, but then you have to aboid by the special Google-licenses* for Android
1) If you are an OEM that uses Google Android for 1 device you cannot use “pure AOSP-Android” for another device
2) You have to include all of Googles apps and place them in specific locations
3) Cannot remember, but there were 3
(written from memory and obviously simplified to be less legalese)
The EU protested against these requirements as they were deemed anti-competitive. Google is now saying they will comply by removing 1) and adding an extra option for 2) being “pay to allow adjustments”
Quick search (EU Android) here gives http://www.osnews.com/comments/30592 & http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm where there’s also (numberred differently
) “2) Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search”
Thanks for that! Normally my posts would include such research, but this time I was too lazy. Great to get assistance.
I was also surprised that an article from the EU could sum up the 3 issues so cleanly. I expected a bible-length “summary”
Which brings me to my point: Chrome pre-installation is irrelevant, especially considering OEMs can install whatever other browser they want right next to it. As long as Google keeps control of Google Play Services, they control Android and users’ Android phones.