EU confirms antitrust probe into Android apps, News Corp. attacks Google news scraping

Posted:
in General Discussion
The European Commission and global media giant News Corp. on Monday confirmed separate actions against Google, with both factions suggesting that Google may be violating European regulations.




In a speech in Amsterdam the Commission's competition head, Margrethe Vestager, said that the organization was looking into Google's deals with Android phone makers and carriers -- specifically, whether requiring that certain Google apps be preloaded is hampering the market for upcoming apps, according to Bloomberg. Reuters noted that the Commission has already been investigating Android for about a year as a result of two earlier complaints, including concerns that Google was preventing device makers from creating and marketing competing versions of Android.

Meanwhile, Commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso on Monday confirmed a complaint from News Corp. that it will begin to assess. While neither News Corp. nor the Commission have provided any formal details, a Bloomberg source suggested that the issue is the combination of Google's search engine and Google News, which by scraping information allegedly deters people from visiting news websites and generating ad revenue.

News Corp. owns a number of major news sites around the world, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post in the U.S., Britain's The Times, and Australia's news.com.au. Even though publications like the Journal nominally hide their full content behind a paywall, Google's rules stipulate that articles must be available to scrape, and indeed it's possible to bypass the Journal's paywall by manually searching for an article's headline.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 73
    saltyzipsaltyzip Posts: 146member
    “Our concern is that, by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,”

    So what does Apple do that's different?
    cnocbuijony0rhonin
  • Reply 2 of 73
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,187member
    Apple preloads its own apps too and they cannot be deleted. What's the difference here? The same thing could apply to desktop PCs and Tablets that have preinstalled software through marketing agreements. That being said I think it's incredibly stupid of the EU to essentially require devices to be shipped bare of all apps. That's about as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
    jony0
  • Reply 3 of 73
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 315member
    Maybe Apple and Android can start shipping phones with a frivolous lawsuit generator app.
    icoco3jony0rhoninJanNLlatifbp
  • Reply 4 of 73
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,866member
    saltyzip said:
    “Our concern is that, by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,”

    So what does Apple do that's different?
    Apple doesn't impose their policy on other phone manufacturers.  I'm fairly certain this is the reason for concern over how Google's policies are stifling competition.  It's good to spend a bit of time thinking about things rather than knee-jerk reacting.
    edited April 2016 phone-ui-guyrepressthisfotoformatcalidouglas baileychiajbdragonai46tmayJanNL
  • Reply 5 of 73
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,866member
    lkrupp said:
    That being said I think it's incredibly stupid of the EU to essentially require devices to be shipped bare of all apps. That's about as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
    They wouldn't be stripped bare -- they'd simply have other companies providing some of the core apps rather than being forced to use Google's.
    ai46
  • Reply 6 of 73
    lkrupp said:
    Apple preloads its own apps too and they cannot be deleted. What's the difference here? 
    I'm not sure why it's not plainly obvious, but Apple does not sell their OS to other OEMs.  They make their own hardware so they can do what they want.

    The same thing could apply to desktop PCs and Tablets that have preinstalled software through marketing agreements. 

    This is not about marketing agreements, this is about stopping handset manufactures from installing their own apps.  Microsoft tried the same thing by not letting OEMs change the default desktop and we all know how that turned out.  They are still paying the price for that to this day.


    repressthisai46
  • Reply 7 of 73
    saltyzip said:
    “Our concern is that, by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,”

    So what does Apple do that's different?

    Dont be obtuse. Apple doesn't license iOS for others to install on their hardware. Android (and Microsoft) do. By forcing OEMs to include your versions (or exclude competitors Apps) they have both caught the attention of the EU. And just like MS lost with Internet Explorer, so will Google lose over Google Apps.
    edited April 2016 repressthisfotoformatchiapscooter63JanNL
  • Reply 8 of 73
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,018member
    lkrupp said:
    Apple preloads its own apps too and they cannot be deleted. What's the difference here? The same thing could apply to desktop PCs and Tablets that have preinstalled software through marketing agreements. That being said I think it's incredibly stupid of the EU to essentially require devices to be shipped bare of all apps. That's about as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
    I think you may be missing a nuance. Apple is not forcing other manufactures to ship their apps. Apple chooses what it wants to ship and doesn't force itself on other manufactures. Google on the other hand allows manufactures to use its Android software and apps, but they must comply with ALL of their restrictions. So you get someone like Samsung that does custom versions of a bunch of Google apps, but they still have to also provide all of Google's apps because Google mandates this. So it is Google using their position in the market to have manufactures do things that they don't want to do. 
  • Reply 9 of 73
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,943member
    saltyzip said:
    “Our concern is that, by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,”

    So what does Apple do that's different?

    Apple owns the hardware and the software; it's sold as a complete unit by Apple, so they can put what they want on it.  Google can do what they want with their Nexus phones, but they can't tell other manufacturers what to install – according to the EU anyway.

    No great fan of Google, but this sounds like another case of the EU trying to line its coffers at the expense of a non-EU company.
    jbdragonai46
  • Reply 10 of 73
    auxio said:
    saltyzip said:
    “Our concern is that, by requiring phone makers and operators to pre-load a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,”

    So what does Apple do that's different?
    Apple doesn't impose their policy on other phone manufacturers.  I'm fairly certain this is the reason for concern over how Google's policies are stifling competition.  It's good to spend a bit of time thinking about things rather than knee-jerk reacting.
    Google doesn't 'impose" any policy on any manufacturer. They're license agreements. The manufacturers can choose not to use, alter and ship Android if they please. If these agreements didn't exist, then Android either wouldn't exist, or wouldn't exist in it's correct form as Google wouldn't be able to profit on it otherwise.
    edited April 2016 jbdragon
  • Reply 11 of 73
    Rayz2016 said:
    No great fan of Google, but this sounds like another case of the EU trying to line its coffers at the expense of a non-EU company.
    I'm not a fan of the EU either, but it's Google who is lining their coffers here.  Android rules for OEMs are clearly anti-competitive and is the same shit Microsoft pulled in the 90's
    fotoformatai46copeland
  • Reply 12 of 73
    OEMs don't PAY to use Android. The bundled apps are the payment. 

    Its simply a different model. 

    Amazing how how governments can't use their brains. 

    Reminds me of Apples ebook strategy that all of a sudden became illegal simply because some government stooge decided they didn't like it. 
  • Reply 13 of 73
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,480member
    Android is suppose to be open sourced and Google must not have power to require phone manufacturers to load Google crap apps as default and cannot be deleted. Apple, on other hand is not open source or claim as such.But, about this article, Google wants to make money on others work should be stopped/penalized.
  • Reply 14 of 73
    awilliams87 said:

    Google doesn't 'impose" any policy on any manufacturer. They're license agreements. The manufacturers can choose not to use, alter and ship Android if they please. If these agreements didn't exist, then Android either wouldn't exist, or wouldn't exist in it's correct form as Google wouldn't be able to profit on it otherwise.
    Just because something can be licensed doesn't mean the license is legal.  Microsoft had the same deal and you could argue that the OEM 'didn't have to sign the deal' but that does not mean the license agreement isn't anti-competitive.  
    repressthisai46tmay
  • Reply 15 of 73
    OEMs don't PAY to use Android. The bundled apps are the payment. 

    Its simply a different model. 

    Amazing how how governments can't use their brains. 

    Reminds me of Apples ebook strategy that all of a sudden became illegal simply because some government stooge decided they didn't like it. 
    In the late 1800s, England passed automotive laws requiring vehicles to travel at a maximum of 2 mph in the city and cars had to have a man carrying a red flag to walk in front them...
    edited April 2016 jbdragon
  • Reply 16 of 73
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,866member
    auxio said:
    Apple doesn't impose their policy on other phone manufacturers.  I'm fairly certain this is the reason for concern over how Google's policies are stifling competition.  It's good to spend a bit of time thinking about things rather than knee-jerk reacting.
    Google doesn't 'impose" any policy on any manufacturer. They're license agreements. The manufacturers can choose not to use, alter and ship Android if they please. 
    I understand that there is a choice in the matter.  Just as there was a choice for PC manufacturers not to use Microsoft Windows in the 1990s.  But one can't ignore that, in reality, there is very little choice for these manufacturers if they want to have a phone/computer with all the features of their competitors.  And lawmakers tend to deal with economic and competitive realities, not theoretical possibilities.

    If these agreements didn't exist, then Android either wouldn't exist, or wouldn't exist in it's correct form as Google wouldn't be able to profit on it otherwise.
    I fully understand that this is part of their business model.  Just as Microsoft's OEM bundling agreement in the 1990s was part of theirs.  Now it's up to lawmakers to decide if this business model is good for the marketplace or not.

    Also note that embedded Linux systems existed long before Android did (and continue to exist).  In a parallel reality where Android wasn't created, there'd more than likely be a committee of handset manufacturers who use embedded variants of Linux deciding on interoperability standards.  I doubt they'd have achieved the same level of uniformity across handsets as Android has, but then that might not necessarily be a bad thing for consumers...
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 17 of 73
    auxio said:
    Google doesn't 'impose" any policy on any manufacturer. They're license agreements. The manufacturers can choose not to use, alter and ship Android if they please. 
    I understand that there is a choice in the matter.  Just as there was a choice for PC manufacturers not to use Microsoft Windows in the 1990s.  But one can't ignore that, in reality, there is very little choice for these manufacturers if they want to have a phone/computer with all the features of their competitors.  And lawmakers tend to deal with economic and competitive realities, not theoretical possibilities.

    I fully understand that this is part of their business model.  Just as Microsoft's OEM bundling agreement in the 1990s was part of theirs.  Now it's up to lawmakers to decide if this business model is good for the marketplace or not.
    "Lawmakers" don't determine what's good for the marketplace. Customers and their money do. "Lawmakers" simply superimpose their own restrictions, whether they're good for the marketplace or not. They're the only group who is actually using force, or the threat of force, not Google.

    Did manufacturers have more "choice" in the past before Android existed?
    edited April 2016 jbdragon
  • Reply 18 of 73
    Google cannot build decent hardware. They make no money in hardware. They relying the hardware manufacturers for their model. They have fostered cutthroat competition in hardware and through their software  licensing are guaranteed a profit while the manufacturers struggle to stay afloat.  

    When the hardware manufacturers want to include their own apps that compete with Google Play, Google disallows it. 

    Google stole the iOS interface and stole Java to produce Android. They didn't develop WebKit but usurped it and now attempting to do the same with Swift. 

    As Android is forced into being rewritten, Samsung should have a golden opportunity to push Tizen. 

    European laws are European laws. Google needs to abide by them or leave the European market like they did with China. Simple as that. 

    I myself don't want to pay 80% of my income in taxes. It's why I don't live in Europe. Google can whine about it all they want and their apologists can rant and rave about it. It doesn't change anything. Apple's business model seems acceptable and Google's is not. 
    ai46kevin keeadm1copeland
  • Reply 19 of 73
    wood1208 said:
    Android is suppose to be open sourced and Google must not have power to require phone manufacturers to load Google crap apps as default and cannot be deleted. Apple, on other hand is not open source or claim as such.But, about this article, Google wants to make money on others work should be stopped/penalized.
    Why not? Is it not their own software?
    cnocbui
  • Reply 20 of 73
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,909member
    Pretty sure Samsung has shipped "Google Android" phones with their own version of the typical Google apps pre-installed. Some carriers have also pre-installed Bing Search on Google Android phones (even Motorola phones). Some companies use open-sourced Android to produce their own Android devices perhaps devoid of pre-installed Google apps for the most part, ie certain Chinese OEM's, more Western-oriented companies like Amazon and OnePlus, and a few others. As far back as 2014 it was estimated that 20% or more of the Android phones being shipped were not Google Android, those with pre-installed Google services. My guess is it's a significantly higher percentage now. As far as I know there was never an "open-source" Windows to fork as any company not wanting to use Microsoft might wish so comparing the two when it comes to competition issues is certainly not directly comparable. Any company who wishes to bypass Google and their services but isn't capable either technically or financially of developing their own OS from scratch can take Android for themselves. 

    Methinks Microsoft may still up to their tricks.
    chiajbdragon
Sign In or Register to comment.