Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai has responded to the EU’s antitrust fine regarding Android. The blog post is exactly what you’d expect – a lot of fluffy language about how amazing Android is and how it helps little kids pet bunnies and all that stuff, with remarkably little substance. There’s really no actual reply to the three core claims in the EU ruling, which makes the response rather weak.
One part stood out to me though.
The phones made by these companies are all different, but have one thing in common – the ability to run the same applications. This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules – they can use or modify Android in any way they want, just as Amazon has done with its Fire tablets and TV sticks.
This hits at the core of the ruling, because according to the EU, established through years of research and verifiable through leaked copies of the agreements Google signs with Android device makers, the very problem is that Android bans Android device makers from making or shipping Android devices that do not use Google’s version of Android. Pichai seems to claim here that that’s not true, but this is something that ought to be easily verifiable, and I doubt the EU would hand down this fine if the agreements between Android device makers and Google didn’t clearly specify this.
We’ll have to wait and see if Google can substantiate all of this, because if not, Pichai just flat-out lied in an official statement from the company.
Well users who buy an android device, expect the apps they are used to. Things like Twitter, Netflix, and Facebook as well as the google apps like the assistant, navigation, gmail, apps, and of course the play store.
To get these google apps you have to make google happy, which limits your customization.
Amazon did diverge, and basically fork android. So much so that good luck finding any reference to android from Amazon. As far as users are concerned the amazon tablet is not an android device. You can’t run android apps, you can’t install the play store, and anything you assume about android may or may not work on an amazon device.
Edited 2018-07-18 22:41 UTC
Honestly, I kind of like Android the way it is. The last thing I’d want is Samsung and their ilk gutting the shit out of Android, pulling out most/all of Google’s stuff, and probably breaking apps in the process. If you don’t want something becoming a complete clusterfuck like Linux on the desktop is, you have to exert some amount of control over it, so that it remains cohesive across all the various OEM incarnations.
Quote:
The phones made by these companies are all different, but have one thing in common – the ability to run the same applications. This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules – they can use or modify Android in any way they want, just as Amazon has done with its Fire tablets and TV sticks.
Breaking down this statement.
The phones made by these companies are all different, but have one thing in common – the ability to run the same applications: True
This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device: True
Amazon and other companies invest heavily in replicating many of the Play Service API’s so that they can offer alternative marketplaces for android. example: https://developer.amazon.com/fire-tablets
No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules – they can use or modify Android in any way they want, just as Amazon has done with its Fire tablets and TV sticks: True
You don’t have to use google services on android, you can do whatever you want.. that’s called AOSP. If you want to use Play Services as the market place and supporting services (as users expect is the case) then you should be locked into the ecosystem. It’s not free to develop Android as an OS, and it’s not free to run Play services. The cost is likely tens of billions and yet people are complaining that they should have more flexibility in their contract with Google to pick and chose how google makes revenue from something that they create?
There are many cases where phones from major manufactures will ship with the google code and then when you sign in you get a bundle more bloatware that often includes competing apps to Googles. I’ve had this (poor) user experience on several major brand phones provided by companies that I have worked for.
Adding another point. User expect that their handset comes with many of these apps because they are more often than not best of breed. It’s the same reason why many people change their default search engine to Google, or they install Google Maps etc.. When you become the defacto standard it’s what users expect.
But this is exactly the point of anti-competition laws. Enforced bundling can be what prevents other competitors from entering the market, or from getting the investment needed that would allow them to overtake the ‘best of breed’. That’s how this bundling stifles innovation. It means the entrenched services are best of breed because they’re pushing down the competition, rather than rising above it.
Yes, you can build a phone based on the open source version of Android. Verifiably. Amazon did it, it was called the Fire Phone, and it ran Fire OS, a forked version of Android. It didn’t have the Google Play Store, or any of the google features that required a paid license.
Christ, I mean Google gives almost the whole damned thing away, and then charges for things that it has spent massive amounts of money on in order to monetize their investment. I am convinced the EU hates capitalism. It’d be perfectly happy with giant voice only cell phones only the rich can afford and Minitel.
Then you are missing the point. Big time.
From the European Commission’s Press Release available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm:
“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 development and distribution of competing Android operating systems
[…]”
You may or may not agree with the Commission’s conclusions, and for instance it could be argued that you can fork Android as Amazon did, but this doesn’t exonerate you from getting your fact straight because this is exactly the opposite of “hating capitalism”.
RT.
Amazon can get away with it because they are a phone maker, but want to put a storefront in the costumers hands. If needed, they are perfectly willing to give the devices away, which is something a phone manufacturer simply cannot do.
It is rather deceptive to pretend phone manufacturers have the freedom to do with android as they want but then abuse ones market position to put those manufacturers at such a disadvantage in the market that they might as well not exist.
Edited 2018-07-19 05:34 UTC
Of course this is a lot of fluffy language, because this is not their official response to UE, this is a general statement for public and the press. A response would not be made by the company’s CEO, but by their lawyers.
I think what had the EU concerned was not the API compatibility rules, but the unrelated term that a device maker is obligated to bundle Chrome and the Google home screen search box if they want to have Play Services and Play Store.
Essentially, Google is abusing the need of device makers to have a core component of Android (Play Services and the Play Store) to make their online services default on Android.
Anyway, this ruling sets a precedent which seriously threatens Eric S Raymond’s “give the software away, sell the online service” monetization strategy (it is one of his proposed strategies for making money from open source).
Edited 2018-07-19 08:59 UTC
The good news for Google and Eric is that if they can continue to provide the very best software and service combination, then there’s nothing to prevent this strategy working. It just means users will have to choose those services, rather than have them foisted upon them.
Which beggars the question why bother developing an OS to give it away, if it doesn’t offer any tangible advantage to your bread-winner business (online services). Google funds AOSP so they can use the “look, it’s (mostly) open source” excuse to force vendors to make Chrome and the Google search box default without antitrust authorities complaining too much. Well, up until now.
Right, that’s a fair question. To apply their business model without incurring these kinds of fines, Google have to develop free software that complements the services they offer, rather than develop it at a loss to force out other OS-vendors and then use it as a Trojan horse to impose unrelated services.
There are other ways the market can be configured that would fund AOSP, e.g. by handset manufacturers where the coupling makes more sense and wouldn’t attract antitrust authorities.
[Edit: grammar]
Edited 2018-07-19 11:16 UTC
Not necessarily. If you are the sole provider of the service(s) and the software and aren’t dependent on third parties for distribution (like Android on IHV phones), the chances of running afoul of competition regulation is small.
You could even give away the software that provides the service server side. It is easy to protect your business by employing trademarks. If you own the trademark “Top of Class” for your service and software, no one else can offer the “Top of Class” branded service or software. It is how Red Hat can give away RHEL as software and not have to fear others selling RHEL, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a protected trademark. It’s why Oracle rebrands it as Unbreakable Linux.
And what prevents competitors from forking the software and using the R&D dollars they saved to out-marketer your trademark? This is why Nokia chose to de-prioritize MeeGo and stick with Symbian, because they were footing the R&D bill but their long-time copycat Samsung (yes, Samsung was copying Nokia before the copied Apple with the original Galaxy S) was waiting to get the software or most of it for free.
Edited 2018-07-19 17:44 UTC
I have an Oppo phone and it uses ColourOS, which is Oppo’s version of the AndroidOS. It’s quite different in some ways to Google’s Android and no, it’s not just the launcher.
Mr. Pichai’s statement regarding this seems correct.
The important caveat is that Google has banned some device makers who have an Android licence from making or shipping Android devices that don’t use Google’s version of Android. That was one of the conclusions of the EU investigation. All of Oppo’s phones are Google licensed so actually versions of Google’s Android by Google’s definition. What Google may have prevented (we don’t know which companies it applies to) was Oppo also offering non-licenced phones based on AOSP (e.g. Fire-branded phones).
I think you’re right though. Mr Pichai gets away with it because of his very carefully chosen wording. “No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules”… but if they do, then every one of their phones must conform. It’s the ‘all phones or no phones’ requirement the EU objected to (amongst other things).
The EU case is historical, so Google may well have dropped these restrictions now.
Imagine if MS forcing companies like Dell to sell only Windows if it wanted to sell any Windows devices at all.
The point about leveraging a monopoly position is while MS might say ‘well Dell has a choice to become a niche linux vendor’ in reality it has no choice at all.
Obviously the grey area is when that monopoly position is reached.
Same goes for Google saying either if you use our offering ( play store etc ) then you can’t also use or develop competing systems.
Now Google’s position is perfectly *reasonable* in that nobody wants competition it’s a logical position to take – it’s just not in the interests of wider competition.
Google are basically saying – our benevolent dictatorship is best – EU are saying – that’s not your role to decide….
BTW – note from a consumer level I can’t delete useless Google apps, even if I’m running out of space, without a wholesale OS wipe.
In the defence of the EU, the leaders has always been an incompetent mess of nikinpoops so it is at least nothing new.
I will quite happily state that from my point of view the “complaints” that the EU have, are not a problem.
Actually, I’ll go beyond that – I expect and want these things to happen.
The two problems that consumers have had are a lack of updates, and crappy OEM customisations. Not a lack of alternatives to the Google ecosystem.
If a phone is marketed as Android, then it should have the play store, etc. Being able to sell it as Android and not have those things is deceptive to consumers. It will end up annoying a lot of people when they buy a phone and they find they don’t have access to the apps they’ve bought; that they can’t transfer their data, etc.
Do you really “expect and want” payments to exlusively install Google Search?
Don’t misrepresent the EU position, it doesn’t seem the EU expects Android forks to be sold as Android – the problem is, Google didn’t allow making Android forks at all to those who want to also sell Android devices… And if manufacturer wants the Play Store and Services/APIs (if they want compatibility), they are forced into preinstallation of default Google Search app and Chrome (which aren’t about compatibility, but pushing other ~services of Google…). Also, what HereIsAThought says just above.