A U.S. federal judge has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit that charges Google harmed consumers by forcing Android handset makers to use its apps by default, but gave the plaintiffs three weeks to amend their complaint.
The two consumers who filed the suit failed to show that Google’s allegedly illegal restrictive contracts on manufacturers of Android devices resulted in higher prices on phones, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said in a Feb. 20 ruling.
Handset makers are free to release Android handsets without Google’s applications, however, if you want one Google Android application, you got to have them all. I don’t know if the latter is harmful in any way for consumers, but the plethora of insanely cheap – and sometimes, cheap and still really good – Android devices seems to contradict the complaint from the plaintiffs that it drives up prices.
I’m okay with this. The existence of Google apps on a phone doesn’t mean other apps are excluded, and just because Google is a large company doesn’t mean you can automatically use their products without any concern for their interests.
Yeah, and it’s not like you can’t compile Android from source and run it without any Google apps if you want, although I doubt very many people would actually want to, cuz Google apps in general are good
There was a case of Google not being to fond of (I believe) Samsung’s plan to integrate a competing location service with their handsets.
Might want to read this Ars article, because it looks like Google is getting ready to pull a EEE on Android. Its a shame but it looks like Google is gonna end up just as nasty as MSFT in the 90s, I guess that is what they get for going public, now its all about keeping Wall street happy.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android…
That’s an old article, and if IIRC, was thoroughly refuted on OSNews and in the Ars comments, in part by people that actually work on AOSP.
It’s been more than a year since that article, and AOSP is still quite useful – Cyanogen is going strong, and Amazon’s is doing fairly well (right?)
Quote from Tom Answers: “[…] however, if you want one Google Android application, you got to have them all. I don’t know if the latter is harmful in any way for consumers, […]”
However, if you one one Microsoft Office application [Word, who cares for the others], you got to have them all. I don’t know if this is harmful in any way for consumers…
Well, in my world, that’s called “Suites”, didn’t know you had none in yours.
Edited 2015-02-23 18:16 UTC
This is not true. Microsoft sells Word as a stand-alone program. For the UK, see:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/pdp/Word-2013/produc…
When my wife set up her freelance translation business, we bought the standalone edition of Word. It costs half the price of the Home & Business version of Office – which is a considerable saving if you need a version of Word with a commercial license (i.e., not a Home & Student version), and don’t need any of the other office programs.
You can of course buy all the major Office applications as standalone products..
FWIW I’d prefer Google to provide download link for Google Play services in Settings app. I’d actually prefer to have even stock Android apps in Google Play, and not bundled. It’s easier to install apps then to get rid of them.
To me this is one of the many lawsuits that — much like the old EU bitching about the bundling of media player with windows — reeked badly of “Cannot innovate? Litigate!”
Other than storage space concerns, what is stopping you from installing those other applications? What is stopping you from using them instead of the default ones? NOT A DAMNED THING.
It’s just more sour grapes from a bunch of losers.
They’re not even that big, and people are willing to take up far more space for worse (Facebook, anyone?). Maybe the space would be a problem on a device that has < 4 gb, but on low-end devices like that you’re going to have far worse problems than bundled apps.
Because on many phones there is NO WAY to uninstall the Gapps?
If anything I’d say this is a MUCH bigger issue than MSFT bundling IE, after all installing a new browser only took a couple MB and even low end PCs then had 40GB. With the Gapps they 1.- Can take up as much as a third of the storage space on a 512MB phone (of which there are many, including plenty of phones running 4.x) 2.- Can’t be moved to a MicroSD, 3.- Are required to get the playstore, 4.- On the vast majority are set up to be the defaults.
I’m sorry but I fail to see how MSFT bundling IE was bad and this is not, in both cases they are leveraging their dominance in one market to gain share in another.
Everybody bundles these days. Apple bundles Safari and iLife. Google bundles gaps. Microsof bundles IE. I don’t really see anything wrong with any of this, never have, so long as alternatives can be installed. Apple are the nastiest with iOS, since you can’t even make other apps the defaults over their own without jailbreaking.
The Microsoft case in the 90s was just as ridiculous as this is now.
Google Play services is part of the platform, and part that iOS, OSX, Windows 8, and Windows Phone include, and bundling them all is far more convenient and useful than segregating them.
The difference is “Must have Google Play installed to use this app” (Only one thing to install if it isn’t already), versus “Must have Google Rinky-Dinky, Google Bleh, Google Widget, Google thing-a-ma-bob, and Google whatchamacallit*”
*Google Whatchamacallit requires Google Whatsit and Google Thingy.
That would be very Debian-like of them, wouldn’t it? I for one am just as glad not to have to deal with that.
Nearly every lawsuit targeting Android originates with Apple once you follow the paper trail. The only thing those apps do is take space at worst.
BTW the entire GAPPS package is 440mb, Hancom office suite will burn up that much alone not counting the additional 169mb font package.
Edited 2015-02-25 09:34 UTC