Personally I think the the EU is overstepping on this one but I'm certainly not claiming to understand the finer points of the EU's methodology of determining it to be an antitrust violation. No surprise tho as a fine has been signaled for months now.
With that out of the way I think the horses are already out of the barn so I don't see the EU's action making much if any difference at this point. Google Search and Chrome are widely preferred by EU users on the desktop where it's always up to the seller to decide what gets pre-installed, not Google forcing it going on. I would think that serves as evidence that the same preferences would exist on mobile even if there were no automatic default.
Also not sure why Oracle felt they suffered any negative impact from Google services preinstalled either. Microsoft I get.
Still $5B is a hefty fine, grabbing much or most of Google's Play Store profits for this year if it stands. I still don't get how the EU can claim rights to worldwide revenues for an EU specific violation (and Google being a separate subsidiary of overall Alphabet operations in the first place) but as I said in another thread there's obviously legal support for it.
What a beautiful Google apology from its chief apologist.
I wonder this Google entity writes on other blogs (Apple or Android) and if so other name or different ones, I'd love to know.
I assume by "Google entity" you mean me. Hey never miss a chance to get in a personal dig right? Why are you always making everything into some personal vendetta when you reply, yet never actually finding anything factual to disagree with in anything I write?
Anyway I always post under Gatorguy, and yes I comment lots of places and on lots of topics. If you'd like to read more from me send a PM and I'll point you to some since you'd "love to know".
Not too dissimilar to Microsoft and Internet Explorer many years ago - you'd think a company the size of Google (or Alphabet now?) would realise and have worked to avoid it. Then again, they maybe took the Samsung route of going ahead anyway - make a sh*t tonne of money over the years in the hope that any fine would be miniscule in comparison, which it is.
While it may seem on the surface (pun) appear that Google's issue with Android and the EU today is nearly identical to Microsoft's Explorer problem back in the day and therefore they were dumb to do the same thing it is not. https://www.ft.com/content/f1d7b3fc-06dd-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284
your link is behind a paywall, I'm keen to be schooled if I'm mistaken in my understanding of the similarities. From what I can find on the interwebs, Google has already taken action in Russia where it faced a similar anti-competitive charge and as a result now offers users the choice of several search engines and browsers on first launch - exactly like Microsoft now does when we launch IE for the first time. The site noted that taking similar action would be an adequate work-around in the EU. The problem was never that other software WAS available but rather the agreements linking exclusive use of google's services with the android licence.
“We are concerned that today’s decision will upset the careful balance that we have struck with Android, and that it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms,“Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a blog."
Android OS isn't really an open platform with those licensing term, and even then, Android OS is obviously controlled by Google.
As one high-profile example one of the most highly rated and recommended Android phones available, the OnePlus 6, runs their own forked yet Play Store compatible version of Android. OnePlus made their own choices about what services to include. There's 100's of millions of other Android phones sold that also aren't the Google-official versions yet still run on Google provided and monthly updated Android code. Google isn't controlling it nor mandating what services are installed in order to use it.
Manufacturers can select the more ready-to-run Google Android version as the OS for their device or the open-source one where they can install whatever services they wish. It's their choice and not Google's. I get that Google at least once-upon-a time said that a Google Android licensee couldn't do both, but AFAIK that restriction was removed a few years back. Maybe not.
Anyway that's one of the primary reasons I personally think the EU is overstepping on this one tho I'm sure Vestager doesn't care what I think.
BTW, does anyone know what the EU Commission does with that fine money? Somehow find a way to return it to the aggrieved parties? Use it for private Commission parties? Put it in some special fund? I couldn't find a ready reference to it.
That is what it really comes down to. They were due to fine another American company a large amount of money. Are the people of the EU just so dumb that can't use any search engine they want? I use DuckDuckGo on my iOS devices. It's not hard at all to change the default.
I think Google has every right to demand certain apps of theirs to be front and center on a phone using THEIR software. Software they are spending millions working on. No one is forcing any phone manufactures to use it. You want to use some FORKED version, go ahead, but Google shouldn't have to support that.
Imagine the EU telling Apple they have to start letting others install iOS onto their phones!!! You don't think it can't happen? I don't know,.. the EU is pretty nuts these days. Don't worry, I'm sure the EU has some new excuse coming for Apple to fine them a lot of money also.
Simple fact is anyone can write a OS and use that on their own device. Yet they are to lazy and cheap to do it. It's their own fault in allowing Android to grow as large as it has. maybe if they focused on Windows Phone more so. I just think it's another B.S. excuse to fine Google on this. Not that I like Android, or all the Spying Google does. It is, what it is.
Not too dissimilar to Microsoft and Internet Explorer many years ago - you'd think a company the size of Google (or Alphabet now?) would realise and have worked to avoid it. Then again, they maybe took the Samsung route of going ahead anyway - make a sh*t tonne of money over the years in the hope that any fine would be miniscule in comparison, which it is.
If you have followed the Android, you will know that Google doing this simply to copy Apple.
FU Goog! The birds have come home to roost. At least the EU still has rule of law... Along with Oracle’s suit, maybe Goog will finally write its own OS and start competing, rather then steal, betray and bully... HAHAHA Google be evil.
Not too dissimilar to Microsoft and Internet Explorer many years ago - you'd think a company the size of Google (or Alphabet now?) would realise and have worked to avoid it. Then again, they maybe took the Samsung route of going ahead anyway - make a sh*t tonne of money over the years in the hope that any fine would be miniscule in comparison, which it is.
While it may seem on the surface (pun) appear that Google's issue with Android and the EU today is nearly identical to Microsoft's Explorer problem back in the day and therefore they were dumb to do the same thing it is not. https://www.ft.com/content/f1d7b3fc-06dd-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284
your link is behind a paywall, I'm keen to be schooled if I'm mistaken in my understanding of the similarities. From what I can find on the interwebs, Google has already taken action in Russia where it faced a similar anti-competitive charge and as a result now offers users the choice of several search engines and browsers on first launch - exactly like Microsoft now does when we launch IE for the first time. The site noted that taking similar action would be an adequate work-around in the EU. The problem was never that other software WAS available but rather the agreements linking exclusive use of google's services with the android licence.
“We are concerned that today’s decision will upset the careful balance that we have struck with Android, and that it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms,“Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a blog."
Android OS isn't really an open platform with those licensing term, and even then, Android OS is obviously controlled by Google.
As one high-profile example one of the most highly rated and recommended Android phones available, the OnePlus 6, runs their own forked yet Play Store compatible version of Android. OnePlus made their own choices about what services to include. There's 100's of millions of other Android phones sold that also aren't the Google-official versions yet still run on Google provided and monthly updated Android code. Google isn't controlling it nor mandating what services are installed in order to use it.
Manufacturers can select the more ready-to-run Google Android version as the OS for their device or the open-source one where they can install whatever services they wish. It's their choice and not Google's. I get that Google at least once-upon-a time said that a Google Android licensee couldn't do both, but AFAIK that restriction was removed a few years back. Maybe not.
Anyway that's one of the primary reasons I personally think the EU is overstepping on this one tho I'm sure Vestager doesn't care what I think.
BTW, does anyone know what the EU Commission does with that fine money? Somehow find a way to return it to the aggrieved parties? Use it for private Commission parties? Put it in some special fund? I couldn't find a ready reference to it.
I hadn't heard that the restriction was lifted with regard to the license, but it might have been ignored by Google for all I know.
Hey, that’s a better deal than the $15 billion Apple will have to cough up eventually. Pay it, Google, and count your blessings.
Apple would have paid that money to the US government anyway. Now it’ll be claimed as foreign taxes paid and 1:1 reduce Apple’s US taxes on repatriated profits. It’s the US Treasury that will take the hit on the EU’s grab in that case.
"Google isn't controlling it nor mandating what services are installed in order to use it."
was there not a story about a year ago about google trying to get samsung to stop adding to their os (i was just looking for it and cannot find it)?
Are you talking about AOSP, Tizen, or "official" licensed Google Android? AFAIK there are few restrictions on the Google-supplied and regularly updated AOSP, but the story you might be remembering is a tiff with Samsung over installed services, and perhaps something to do with Tizen too, and a subsequent agreement to cross-license their various patents worldwide, work more closely together, and avoid any potential legal issues. Is that the story you might be thinking of?
"Google isn't controlling it nor mandating what services are installed in order to use it."
was there not a story about a year ago about google trying to get samsung to stop adding to their os (i was just looking for it and cannot find it)?
Are you talking about AOSP, Tizen, or "official" licensed Google Android? AFAIK there are few restrictions on the Google-supplied and regularly updated AOSP, but the story you might be remembering is a tiff with Samsung over installed services, and perhaps something to do with Tizen too, and a subsequent agreement to cross-license their various patents worldwide, work more closely together, and avoid any potential legal issues. Is that the story you might be thinking of?
Hilarious.
Convenient that you left out the most important part. Google hasn't been adding new APIs (and all their "good stuff") to AOSP for years now. It's all going into Google Play Services instead, which is 100% closed source. Which means anyone wanting to use Android (and get all the latest & greatest features) is pretty much forced into installing Google Play Services, since vanilla Android (AOSP) is outdated and no longer being improved (outside of bug/security fixes or specific things that need to be in AOSP to function).
Personally I think the the EU is overstepping on this one but I'm certainly not claiming to understand the finer points of the EU's methodology of determining it to be an antitrust violation. No surprise tho as a fine has been signaled for months now.
With that out of the way I think the horses are already out of the barn so I don't see the EU's action making much if any difference at this point. Google Search and Chrome are widely preferred by EU users on the desktop where it's always up to the seller to decide what gets pre-installed, not Google forcing it going on. I would think that serves as evidence that the same preferences would exist on mobile even if there were no automatic default.
Also not sure why Oracle felt they suffered any negative impact from Google services preinstalled either. Microsoft I get.
Still $5B is a hefty fine, grabbing much or most of Google's Play Store profits for this year if it stands. I still don't get how the EU can claim rights to worldwide revenues for an EU specific violation (and Google being a separate subsidiary of overall Alphabet operations in the first place) but as I said in another thread there's obviously legal support for it.
What a beautiful Google apology from its chief apologist.
"Google isn't controlling it nor mandating what services are installed in order to use it."
was there not a story about a year ago about google trying to get samsung to stop adding to their os (i was just looking for it and cannot find it)?
Are you talking about AOSP, Tizen, or "official" licensed Google Android? AFAIK there are few restrictions on the Google-supplied and regularly updated AOSP, but the story you might be remembering is a tiff with Samsung over installed services, and perhaps something to do with Tizen too, and a subsequent agreement to cross-license their various patents worldwide, work more closely together, and avoid any potential legal issues. Is that the story you might be thinking of?
Hilarious.
Convenient that you left out the most important part. Google hasn't been adding new APIs (and all their "good stuff") to AOSP for years now. It's all going into Google Play Services instead, which is 100% closed source. Which means anyone wanting to use Android (and get all the latest & greatest features) is pretty much forced into installing Google Play Services, since vanilla Android (AOSP) is outdated and no longer being improved (outside of bug/security fixes or specific things that need to be in AOSP to function).
Left out mentioning it? You missed reading Post 25.
I wasn't aware you had worked with AOSP on any projects to allow you to speak with such authority on it's usefulness. Looking from the outside it certainly seems quite usable code, maintained and updated despite Google not including all their special sauce stuff found in the licensed version. https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:open
OxygenOS, Lineage, Replicant, MIUI and a dozen more "forked" and full-featured Android variants are built with it. Of course AOSP wouldn't be the same as the enhanced Google version licensed and installed on partner phones. If you want Google to do all the work and foot development costs for all the good stuff unique to Google Android then opt for the license and whatever requirements come with it. If not then use the open-source version which companies from Amazon to OnePlus to Xiaomi to Nokia have successfully done.
Being silly are you, complaining that the licensed version that includes certain requirements and benefits for both the licensee and Google and the free-to-anyone for any device AOSP aren't one and the same? Well of course they aren't! That you might not be capable of building a fully-featured OS from it, and I darn sure wouldn't, doesn't mean AOSP is unusable, un-maintained, and unsuitable for creation of a good stable OS. Look no further than Lineage.
That is what it really comes down to. They were due to fine another American company a large amount of money. Are the people of the EU just so dumb that can't use any search engine they want? I use DuckDuckGo on my iOS devices. It's not hard at all to change the default.
I think Google has every right to demand certain apps of theirs to be front and center on a phone using THEIR software. Software they are spending millions working on. No one is forcing any phone manufactures to use it. You want to use some FORKED version, go ahead, but Google shouldn't have to support that.
Imagine the EU telling Apple they have to start letting others install iOS onto their phones!!! You don't think it can't happen? I don't know,.. the EU is pretty nuts these days. Don't worry, I'm sure the EU has some new excuse coming for Apple to fine them a lot of money also.
Simple fact is anyone can write a OS and use that on their own device. Yet they are to lazy and cheap to do it. It's their own fault in allowing Android to grow as large as it has. maybe if they focused on Windows Phone more so. I just think it's another B.S. excuse to fine Google on this. Not that I like Android, or all the Spying Google does. It is, what it is.
And there's the bit you missed, even though it's been repeated here time and time again:
Imagine the EU telling Apple they have to start letting others install iOS onto their phones!!! You don't think it can't happen? I don't know,..
Google didn't sell the phone to the end user, so they cannot dictate what the manufacturer puts on it, only the manufacturer can do that. You're not buying an Android phone; you're buying a Samsung phone that happens to run Android.
In the case of the iPhone, Apple is the manufacturer. You're buying an iPhone.
The EU was absolutely right to throw the book at Google, no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the same organisation acting as judge, jury AND setting the fine. Not sure how that's supposed to be fair.
Comments
Anyway I always post under Gatorguy, and yes I comment lots of places and on lots of topics. If you'd like to read more from me send a PM and I'll point you to some since you'd "love to know".
Except when it's not (translation - it's open when it suits Google, and closed when it doesn't).
Manufacturers can select the more ready-to-run Google Android version as the OS for their device or the open-source one where they can install whatever services they wish. It's their choice and not Google's. I get that Google at least once-upon-a time said that a Google Android licensee couldn't do both, but AFAIK that restriction was removed a few years back. Maybe not.
Anyway that's one of the primary reasons I personally think the EU is overstepping on this one tho I'm sure Vestager doesn't care what I think.
BTW, does anyone know what the EU Commission does with that fine money? Somehow find a way to return it to the aggrieved parties? Use it for private Commission parties? Put it in some special fund? I couldn't find a ready reference to it.
That is what it really comes down to. They were due to fine another American company a large amount of money. Are the people of the EU just so dumb that can't use any search engine they want? I use DuckDuckGo on my iOS devices. It's not hard at all to change the default.
I think Google has every right to demand certain apps of theirs to be front and center on a phone using THEIR software. Software they are spending millions working on. No one is forcing any phone manufactures to use it. You want to use some FORKED version, go ahead, but Google shouldn't have to support that.
Imagine the EU telling Apple they have to start letting others install iOS onto their phones!!! You don't think it can't happen? I don't know,.. the EU is pretty nuts these days. Don't worry, I'm sure the EU has some new excuse coming for Apple to fine them a lot of money also.
Simple fact is anyone can write a OS and use that on their own device. Yet they are to lazy and cheap to do it. It's their own fault in allowing Android to grow as large as it has. maybe if they focused on Windows Phone more so. I just think it's another B.S. excuse to fine Google on this. Not that I like Android, or all the Spying Google does. It is, what it is.
Hilarious.
Convenient that you left out the most important part. Google hasn't been adding new APIs (and all their "good stuff") to AOSP for years now. It's all going into Google Play Services instead, which is 100% closed source. Which means anyone wanting to use Android (and get all the latest & greatest features) is pretty much forced into installing Google Play Services, since vanilla Android (AOSP) is outdated and no longer being improved (outside of bug/security fixes or specific things that need to be in AOSP to function).
I wasn't aware you had worked with AOSP on any projects to allow you to speak with such authority on it's usefulness. Looking from the outside it certainly seems quite usable code, maintained and updated despite Google not including all their special sauce stuff found in the licensed version.
https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:open
OxygenOS, Lineage, Replicant, MIUI and a dozen more "forked" and full-featured Android variants are built with it. Of course AOSP wouldn't be the same as the enhanced Google version licensed and installed on partner phones. If you want Google to do all the work and foot development costs for all the good stuff unique to Google Android then opt for the license and whatever requirements come with it. If not then use the open-source version which companies from Amazon to OnePlus to Xiaomi to Nokia have successfully done.
Being silly are you, complaining that the licensed version that includes certain requirements and benefits for both the licensee and Google and the free-to-anyone for any device AOSP aren't one and the same? Well of course they aren't! That you might not be capable of building a fully-featured OS from it, and I darn sure wouldn't, doesn't mean AOSP is unusable, un-maintained, and unsuitable for creation of a good stable OS. Look no further than Lineage.
And there's the bit you missed, even though it's been repeated here time and time again:
Google didn't sell the phone to the end user, so they cannot dictate what the manufacturer puts on it, only the manufacturer can do that. You're not buying an Android phone; you're buying a Samsung phone that happens to run Android.
In the case of the iPhone, Apple is the manufacturer. You're buying an iPhone.
The EU was absolutely right to throw the book at Google, no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the same organisation acting as judge, jury AND setting the fine. Not sure how that's supposed to be fair.
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/