Apple gets sued for making its own phones and software to go on those phones because they essentially have a "forced" eco-system. Google was so enamoured with telling us how Apple's system is evil because it's closed...
Very odd lawsuit, then again I never saw a problem with Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows either. The "worst" current "offender" I can think of would be Apple in how they don't allow competing apps for things that they provide. Want a different keyboard? Nope, that's not allowed. However, I don't have a problem with that either (hence the quotation marks around worst and offender). This uniformity is a defining feature in Apple products and I think it works to the benefit of the iOS ecosystem. It allows for a familiarity across devices that doesn't exist on the same level for platforms like Android, Windows, etc. It also makes software development easier as you only have one target to hit in certain areas as opposed to multiple flavors with the possibility of new flavors being added in the future.
The only thing I can think of that could hold water in this case is that many (but not all) of the Google apps come pre-installed as "system apps". On an Android device, a "system app" cannot be removed without rooting your phone so for the purposes of a lawsuit it would be a legitimate argument to say that removing them is not possible. That's memory space you can't get back even if you don't want the app. Of course, this is a double edged sword. Back to the keyboard example, Google Keyboard comes installed as a system app (at least it does on my phone). One can choose alternatives, but you can't remove Google Keyboard without rooting. However, by allowing someone to uninstall it they would then have the ability to uninstall all keyboard apps on the phone and leave themselves keyboard-less. That would make the device pretty unusable without a bit of tech savy-ness to get one back on. YouTube also came pre-installed on my phone as a system app. I can think of no reason that it needs to be that way from a technical perspective. A user can't break the phone's core funcionality by removing the YouTube app and therefore it shouldn't be a system app, IMO.
I think they have a valid point and have a very good chance at succeeding with their lawsuit. Here is why.
It is reasonable for a phone to be priced at the cost to make it including manufacturing costs, development costs, licensing costs, etc. plus a profit margin (yes I know that is lacking in the minds of some phone manufacturers for some inexplicable reason but a reasonable person would include it). One way to lower your costs is to include software that developers are willing to pay to have included on your phones. Programs that would likely be the most profitable for the developer, and thus the developer would be willing to pay the phone manufacturer the greatest amount to have included on a phone, would likely include a search tool and a youtube front end that in itself is paid for by advertising.
Google knows that they are an advertising agency that provides 'free' stuff to consumers to generate advertising revenue for themselves. I think that Apple's restricting of advertising on Google's Youtube app originally included with iOS and Google seeing that Apple was potentially setting itself up as king maker for mobile advertising, was the reason behind Google's Android play. Google wants, needs, the advertising control. Without it, they are a flash in the pan.
If these developers are successful in wrenching search, youtube, and other Google revenue apps from the Android license, Google is no controls its destiny and is a very vulnerable company.
True. Like Linux that it is based on, the underlying OS layers of Android will remain open source (AOSP), but all the new services required by MDMA are not. The tech world is slowly catching on the Google's strategy, but Google will continue to confuse people by branding the entire stack of open and non-open software as simply "Android." And that's outright disingenuous.
Lol guys I know we hate google but I think it's a bullshit lawsuit... It's their shitty software, let them require some things to be on it. No one forces you to use them.
The real issues are related to the anti-fragmentation clauses. If you sign the MADA agreements, you can only do the full certified Google android. You cannot put out a standard android device also. You must certify every firmware load with an agent of Googles and pay for the privilege. It also means you cannot use third party services to replace Googles. Their agreements are totally anti-competitive due to locking you in and locking other options and vendors out.
[quote name="DroidFTW" url="/t/179016/google-slapped-with-antitrust-suit-accused-of-stagnating-competition-with-android-mada-contracts#post_2525927"]Very odd lawsuit, then again I never saw a problem with Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows either. The "worst" current "offender" I can think of would be Apple in how they don't allow competing apps for things that they provide. [/QUOTE]
That's not true. There are various office, mapping, messaging, browsers, mail, stocks, weather, video chat, notes, reminders, and pretty much every other default app and Apple-created App Store app you can think of in the App Store.
[QUOTE]Want a different keyboard? Nope, that's not allowed.[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. You can attach any BT keyboard want or choose from various keyboard setups in Settings. If you're a developer you can also build your own custom keyboard. What can't be done is allow a developer to release just a keyboard app that will then get access too all other apps that need a keyboard which can potentially be mining your data and sending it back to some server in ??????.
You can attach any BT keyboard want or choose from various keyboard setups in Settings. If you're a developer you can also build your own custom keyboard.
Wait! those this mean I can sue my cable provider? Because they are colluding with content providers by adding channels that I don't watch to the price the cable company is quoting me? /S
It seems that some people don't understand what exactly everyone was up in arms over as far as Windows and Internet Explorer... No one had a problem with Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - the problem was that Microsoft tied the browser to the OS, meaning it was impossible to get rid of and clicking on any links presented by the OS opened up Internet Explorer and not the user's browser of choice. It was dead simple to download and use any other browser, but you were still stuck with IE whether you wanted it or not.
This is retarded... you can replace the word Google... with Apple or Microsoft with respect to their handsets.
Yes you can with Microsoft, but not with Apple because Apple is not in the same market as Google and Microsoft.
Google and Microsoft compete in the handset market: phones upon which you can, in theory, install any operating system you like.
Apple is in a market by itself: the iPhone market; the OS and the phone is a single entity that cannot be split.
The difference is subtle, but from a legal standpoint, it means Apple do what it likes because the iPhone and the operating system is one entity.
Android and the phone are two entities: the operating system running on a separate device – and the separate device is the marketplace in which Google has the majority share. Microsoft also competes in this market, but its share is very small, so Android is essentially a monopoly – and an entirely legal one. (There's no such thing as an illegal monopoly, though how you maintain that monopoly can be illegal.)
What's really interesting here is that this is the same distinction that scuppered MS years ago. Because you installed Windows on a machine, the marketplace was PCs, and Microsoft (through the bizarre practice of forcing OEMs to pay for Windows licenses whether they installed Windows on the machine or not) was creating a barrier to entry to this market: manufacturers would not install Linux because they'd already paid for a Windows license. This is illegal.
The case against Google is that they are using their monopoly position in one market (the handset market), to gain a monopoly position in another (video streaming and app stores running on the handset). This is illegal, but the lawyers have to prove that that is what Google is doing.
The handset manufacturers want to differentiate their offerings by being able to have their own video streaming services and app stores, but they claim that Google's market leveraging is preventing them from gaining a foothold in video streaming and app stores. They are probably right, but this ignores the fact that they would create massive fragmentation by doing so.
So why does Apple get away with not allowing competing services on the iPhone? Because the platform is the whole device. When you buy an iPhone, you're buying the whole thing, not a phone (the market) and an operating system (a player in that market), and Apple can legally dictate what runs on the whole thing. If you don't like it then there is nothing stopping you from getting another phone, which the vast majority of people do. If Apple licensed the OS to other manufacturers then they could not legally stop you from running whatever you want on your phone, in much the same way that MS tried to dictate what you ran on your PC.
"Simply put, there is no lawful, pro-competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load popular Google apps like this."
This is like complaining that Apple prohibits carriers that sell the iPhone from preloading their own apps at all. Third parties have far more opportunities to compete with Google on Android than with Apple on iOS, for the simple reason that the Android system lets the OEMs and carriers set their pet apps as default, as Verizon has done in the past with the hope that uninformed customers would use the paid VZ Navigator app instead of Google Maps.
As far as I see this lawsuit is nonsense. Anyone (manufacturer) can use Android without the Google apps, just look at Amazon or Barnes and Nobel Nook (up until a year ago or so), however, if you want to have the access to Google app store your device must be Google certified and certification comes with certain requirements. Amazon is completely unaffected by Google requirements and that is a clear example that Google does not stonarming anyone, in case of Nook, they could not survive without Google app store.
...for the simple reason that the Android system lets the OEMs and carriers set their pet apps as default, as Verizon has done in the past with the hope that uninformed customers would use the paid VZ Navigator app instead of Google Maps.
Google lets the vendors and carriers hobble and lock down the device so that it's inconstant with other Android-based systems across difference carriers, vendors, and even models which hurts the user experience. When this is mentioned the canned answer is to install a custom ROM, as if that's something that users would want to do with a new device. When that is brought up the canned answer is that those people shouldn't use smartphones. Such a lovely group.
Yes, I think Google has acted anti-competively.
No, I think Google search (and Google Now) is superior to other options.
Yes, I think Google claiming Android is "open" just to restrict any useful apps to a separate licensing deal is disingenuous.
No, I don't see MADA as being anti-competitive.
Lol guys I know we hate google but I think it's a bullshit lawsuit... It's their shitty software, let them require some things to be on it. No one forces you to use them.
I dunno man, when Microsoft forced IE on users to monopolize the internet amongst other things the DOJ was not very kind to them and their arrogance.
Judge: "phone manufacturer #1 why did you use the Android OS"
Phone manufacturer #1: "because we're too lazy and stupid to create our own"
Judge: "phone manufacturer #2 why did you use the Android OS"
Phone manufacturer #2: "same reason as #1"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I hate Android to the nth degree... that being said...
There are two handset makers, that want to use an OS (Android) that is developed and maintained by a separate company (Google) at no cost to the manufacturer, and the handset makers are b!tching that to use the FREE software, they have to install some apps that benefit the company that is doing all the work to make their handset actually useful? Really people?
No one is stopping them from creating their own phone OS and ecosystem! Oh wait, that would involve doing work!!
The world is full of whiners!
In what way is Samsung lazy then, given they have developed, not one, but two phone OSs?
Comments
Apple gets sued for making its own phones and software to go on those phones because they essentially have a "forced" eco-system. Google was so enamoured with telling us how Apple's system is evil because it's closed...
Welcome shoe to the other foot.
Very odd lawsuit, then again I never saw a problem with Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows either. The "worst" current "offender" I can think of would be Apple in how they don't allow competing apps for things that they provide. Want a different keyboard? Nope, that's not allowed. However, I don't have a problem with that either (hence the quotation marks around worst and offender). This uniformity is a defining feature in Apple products and I think it works to the benefit of the iOS ecosystem. It allows for a familiarity across devices that doesn't exist on the same level for platforms like Android, Windows, etc. It also makes software development easier as you only have one target to hit in certain areas as opposed to multiple flavors with the possibility of new flavors being added in the future.
The only thing I can think of that could hold water in this case is that many (but not all) of the Google apps come pre-installed as "system apps". On an Android device, a "system app" cannot be removed without rooting your phone so for the purposes of a lawsuit it would be a legitimate argument to say that removing them is not possible. That's memory space you can't get back even if you don't want the app. Of course, this is a double edged sword. Back to the keyboard example, Google Keyboard comes installed as a system app (at least it does on my phone). One can choose alternatives, but you can't remove Google Keyboard without rooting. However, by allowing someone to uninstall it they would then have the ability to uninstall all keyboard apps on the phone and leave themselves keyboard-less. That would make the device pretty unusable without a bit of tech savy-ness to get one back on. YouTube also came pre-installed on my phone as a system app. I can think of no reason that it needs to be that way from a technical perspective. A user can't break the phone's core funcionality by removing the YouTube app and therefore it shouldn't be a system app, IMO.
I think they have a valid point and have a very good chance at succeeding with their lawsuit. Here is why.
It is reasonable for a phone to be priced at the cost to make it including manufacturing costs, development costs, licensing costs, etc. plus a profit margin (yes I know that is lacking in the minds of some phone manufacturers for some inexplicable reason but a reasonable person would include it). One way to lower your costs is to include software that developers are willing to pay to have included on your phones. Programs that would likely be the most profitable for the developer, and thus the developer would be willing to pay the phone manufacturer the greatest amount to have included on a phone, would likely include a search tool and a youtube front end that in itself is paid for by advertising.
Google knows that they are an advertising agency that provides 'free' stuff to consumers to generate advertising revenue for themselves. I think that Apple's restricting of advertising on Google's Youtube app originally included with iOS and Google seeing that Apple was potentially setting itself up as king maker for mobile advertising, was the reason behind Google's Android play. Google wants, needs, the advertising control. Without it, they are a flash in the pan.
If these developers are successful in wrenching search, youtube, and other Google revenue apps from the Android license, Google is no controls its destiny and is a very vulnerable company.
But but but but but but… Android is OPEN!
True. Like Linux that it is based on, the underlying OS layers of Android will remain open source (AOSP), but all the new services required by MDMA are not. The tech world is slowly catching on the Google's strategy, but Google will continue to confuse people by branding the entire stack of open and non-open software as simply "Android." And that's outright disingenuous.
The real issues are related to the anti-fragmentation clauses. If you sign the MADA agreements, you can only do the full certified Google android. You cannot put out a standard android device also. You must certify every firmware load with an agent of Googles and pay for the privilege. It also means you cannot use third party services to replace Googles. Their agreements are totally anti-competitive due to locking you in and locking other options and vendors out.
That's not true. There are various office, mapping, messaging, browsers, mail, stocks, weather, video chat, notes, reminders, and pretty much every other default app and Apple-created App Store app you can think of in the App Store.
[QUOTE]Want a different keyboard? Nope, that's not allowed.[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. You can attach any BT keyboard want or choose from various keyboard setups in Settings. If you're a developer you can also build your own custom keyboard. What can't be done is allow a developer to release just a keyboard app that will then get access too all other apps that need a keyboard which can potentially be mining your data and sending it back to some server in ??????.
This is retarded... you can replace the word Google... with Apple or Microsoft with respect to their handsets.
I am sorry but people like this give Americans a bad name... talk about a 1st world problem.
My advice to them is suck it up princess or go buy an iPhone one Windows phone.... there are other choices.
But but market share!!!
You can attach any BT keyboard want or choose from various keyboard setups in Settings. If you're a developer you can also build your own custom keyboard.
Wait! those this mean I can sue my cable provider? Because they are colluding with content providers by adding channels that I don't watch to the price the cable company is quoting me? /S
[LIST]
[*] http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/1/5673742/activists-sue-san-francisco-for-letting-google-bus-use-public-bus
[/LIST]
It seems that some people don't understand what exactly everyone was up in arms over as far as Windows and Internet Explorer... No one had a problem with Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - the problem was that Microsoft tied the browser to the OS, meaning it was impossible to get rid of and clicking on any links presented by the OS opened up Internet Explorer and not the user's browser of choice. It was dead simple to download and use any other browser, but you were still stuck with IE whether you wanted it or not.
This is retarded... you can replace the word Google... with Apple or Microsoft with respect to their handsets.
Yes you can with Microsoft, but not with Apple because Apple is not in the same market as Google and Microsoft.
Google and Microsoft compete in the handset market: phones upon which you can, in theory, install any operating system you like.
Apple is in a market by itself: the iPhone market; the OS and the phone is a single entity that cannot be split.
The difference is subtle, but from a legal standpoint, it means Apple do what it likes because the iPhone and the operating system is one entity.
Android and the phone are two entities: the operating system running on a separate device – and the separate device is the marketplace in which Google has the majority share. Microsoft also competes in this market, but its share is very small, so Android is essentially a monopoly – and an entirely legal one. (There's no such thing as an illegal monopoly, though how you maintain that monopoly can be illegal.)
What's really interesting here is that this is the same distinction that scuppered MS years ago. Because you installed Windows on a machine, the marketplace was PCs, and Microsoft (through the bizarre practice of forcing OEMs to pay for Windows licenses whether they installed Windows on the machine or not) was creating a barrier to entry to this market: manufacturers would not install Linux because they'd already paid for a Windows license. This is illegal.
The case against Google is that they are using their monopoly position in one market (the handset market), to gain a monopoly position in another (video streaming and app stores running on the handset). This is illegal, but the lawyers have to prove that that is what Google is doing.
The handset manufacturers want to differentiate their offerings by being able to have their own video streaming services and app stores, but they claim that Google's market leveraging is preventing them from gaining a foothold in video streaming and app stores. They are probably right, but this ignores the fact that they would create massive fragmentation by doing so.
So why does Apple get away with not allowing competing services on the iPhone? Because the platform is the whole device. When you buy an iPhone, you're buying the whole thing, not a phone (the market) and an operating system (a player in that market), and Apple can legally dictate what runs on the whole thing. If you don't like it then there is nothing stopping you from getting another phone, which the vast majority of people do. If Apple licensed the OS to other manufacturers then they could not legally stop you from running whatever you want on your phone, in much the same way that MS tried to dictate what you ran on your PC.
"Simply put, there is no lawful, pro-competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load popular Google apps like this."
This is like complaining that Apple prohibits carriers that sell the iPhone from preloading their own apps at all. Third parties have far more opportunities to compete with Google on Android than with Apple on iOS, for the simple reason that the Android system lets the OEMs and carriers set their pet apps as default, as Verizon has done in the past with the hope that uninformed customers would use the paid VZ Navigator app instead of Google Maps.
Google lets the vendors and carriers hobble and lock down the device so that it's inconstant with other Android-based systems across difference carriers, vendors, and even models which hurts the user experience. When this is mentioned the canned answer is to install a custom ROM, as if that's something that users would want to do with a new device. When that is brought up the canned answer is that those people shouldn't use smartphones. Such a lovely group.
Yes, I accept your opinion.
Yes, I’ll ignore it.
Lol guys I know we hate google but I think it's a bullshit lawsuit... It's their shitty software, let them require some things to be on it. No one forces you to use them.
I dunno man, when Microsoft forced IE on users to monopolize the internet amongst other things the DOJ was not very kind to them and their arrogance.
Judge: "phone manufacturer #1 why did you use the Android OS"
Phone manufacturer #1: "because we're too lazy and stupid to create our own"
Judge: "phone manufacturer #2 why did you use the Android OS"
Phone manufacturer #2: "same reason as #1"
I hate Android to the nth degree... that being said...
There are two handset makers, that want to use an OS (Android) that is developed and maintained by a separate company (Google) at no cost to the manufacturer, and the handset makers are b!tching that to use the FREE software, they have to install some apps that benefit the company that is doing all the work to make their handset actually useful? Really people?
No one is stopping them from creating their own phone OS and ecosystem! Oh wait, that would involve doing work!!
The world is full of whiners!
In what way is Samsung lazy then, given they have developed, not one, but two phone OSs?