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.
It's not the same situation at all. Google does not prevent handset manufacturers from installing their own apps. It just insists that they have to install the Google apps *as well*. Big difference. Plus, Android itself lets you choose which app to be used as the default, the first time and if you desire, every time an operation is performed that launches an app that implements an Android Intent. On Android, the first time an operation is performed Google's apps don't even get any kind of preference. They are shown in a list along with every other app that can satisfy the request.
The fact is that the vast majority of Android users simply prefer Google's versions to the mostly sub standard fare that Android OEMs like Samsung provide - hence the term bloatware is not directed at Google's offerings, but rather those of the OEMs.
Microsoft's license actively prevented a competitor's app (or OS) from being installed on the machine.
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.
Think of it: Around 1999-2000 Microsoft required their Interent browser be installed in order to allow distribution of WInSock libraries - TCP Stack core libraries for C/C++ programming. That was for all projects who needed to write all types of communications (think of social media, finanical market data etc.).
That was the time of Internet browser wars: You had to get unreleated software installed to get you apps running. That was a burden on your part to market those tools or force users to install software they did not want. How did this translate to customers need to install your solution? What did customers think of your product if they did not want IE?
It is different if platform comes with some software preinstalled than it is when you are forced to install unrelated software to comply with redistribution license.
“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,”
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 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.
I'm sure organized crime could make the same arguments for their business practices (e.g. paying people off to ensure there's no competition). And most customers have no idea/could care less what's going on at the business level as long as they're getting products for as cheap as possible. It's pretty easy to create a monopoly in an industry without having customers even notice what's going on. This is the very reason we have higher level organizations in place to investigate and regulate industry.
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.
Did manufacturers have more "choice" in the past before Android existed?
Yes, I'd say there were a few more competitive OS choices for hardware manufacturers before Android existed. Many variants of Linux & BSD UNIX, QNX, Windows Mobile, etc. Most of those options are still there, but given the option of Android with everything it provides (Google Play ecosystem, complete vertical integration), it'd be commercial suicide for all but the biggest manufacturers to choose them.
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.
That's an awful lot of talking without actually saying anything.
Tell me, can you do the following with Android?
- Sell a high-end Galaxy S7 with Android and all Google Apps/Services installed AND also sell a low-end Galaxy device (say for India or China) with a customized forked version of AOSP and no Google Apps/Services? - Sell an Android device with SOME Google Apps/Services installed while removing others to be replaced by your own versions instead?
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.
The big problem is that they lose Google Play if they don't ship an Android certified phone. So if they don't have their own app/content ecosystem in place, then it's commercial suicide. Samsung and Amazon can do it because they're big companies which have their own ecosystems. But for smaller companies, it's not an option.
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.
It's not the same situation at all. Google does not prevent handset manufacturers from installing their own apps.
"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.
I'm sure organized crime could make the same arguments for their business practices (e.g. paying people off to ensure there's no competition). And most customers have no idea/could care less what's going on at the business level as long as they're getting products for as cheap as possible. It's pretty easy to create a monopoly in an industry without having customers even notice what's going on. This is the very reason we have higher level organizations in place to regulate industry.
Give one example of a monopoly which was "easy to create" without utilizing State power to enforce it.
I'm sure organized crime could make the same arguments for their business practices (e.g. paying people off to ensure there's no competition). And most customers have no idea/could care less what's going on at the business level as long as they're getting products for as cheap as possible. It's pretty easy to create a monopoly in an industry without having customers even notice what's going on. This is the very reason we have higher level organizations in place to regulate industry.
Give one example of a monopoly which was "easy to create" without utilizing State power to enforce it.
Microsoft in the PC industry circa 1998 (using similar contracts with OEMs). Tell me who was competing with them at that time?
“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 don't force phone manufacturers to use Android. They are perfectly free to go off and make their own OS like Samsung did with Bada and Tizen. Nothing stopping them from using Windows Phone OS, either. Google also don't prevent users from downloading and using alternative apps, either.
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.
I live in Europe and I don't want to pay 80% of my income in taxes either, so I don't, it's more like 43% if you include the VAT when you spend what you net. You don't want to know what my son's College fees are, you might cry.
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.
Google can put whatever apps they want on THEIR OWN PHONES.
But forcing OTHER PHONE makers to put Google Apps is the problem.
How do Google force manufacturers to put Android on their phones? Do they force Apple to put Android on iPhones?
Google can put whatever apps they want on THEIR OWN PHONES.
But forcing OTHER PHONE makers to put Google Apps is the problem.
How do Google force manufacturers to put Android on their phones? Do they force Apple to put Android on iPhones?
So if I start up a small handset manufacturing company, tell me what my real world options are for an operating system at this point? You know, the ones which will actually ensure I'm competitive in the marketplace with other manufacturers. Windows perhaps, but Microsoft will want a licensing fee, which means competitors using Android can undercut me.
It's not the same situation at all. Google does not prevent handset manufacturers from installing their own apps. It just insists that they have to install the Google apps *as well*. Big difference. Plus, Android itself lets you choose which app to be used as the default, the first time and if you desire, every time an operation is performed that launches an app that implements an Android Intent. On Android, the first time an operation is performed Google's apps don't even get any kind of preference. They are shown in a list along with every other app that can satisfy the request.
The fact is that the vast majority of Android users simply prefer Google's versions to the mostly sub standard fare that Android OEMs like Samsung provide - hence the term bloatware is not directed at Google's offerings, but rather those of the OEMs.
Microsoft's license actively prevented a competitor's app (or OS) from being installed on the machine.
It's exactly the same situation. That situation is 'telling OEMs what has to be installed on the Phone'. And yes, google own apps are considered bloatware - you just need to pull your head out of google's ass.
The Microsoft issues started when they wouldn't allow OEM's from removing Internet Explorer off the desktop.
Give one example of a monopoly which was "easy to create" without utilizing State power to enforce it.
Microsoft in the PC industry circa 1998. Tell me who was competing with them at that time?
1) The Microsoft case in 1998 was not about lack of competition. It was about the nonsensical notion of "tying" agreements.
2) 92% of PCs shipped today have Windows installed on it. Why go back to 1998 and not just claim Microsoft is a "monopoly" today?
3) I said to list a company which doesn't use State power to enforce it's "monopoly" position. Microsoft profits are almost entirely dependent on the artificially created notion of "intellectual property", which, even from an historical perspective, are grants of monopoly privilege by the government. Its not something that exist without the government.
How do Google force manufacturers to put Android on their phones? Do they force Apple to put Android on iPhones?
So if I start up a small handset manufacturing company, tell me what my real world options are for an operating system at this point? You know, the ones which will actually ensure I'm competitive in the marketplace with other manufacturers. Windows perhaps, but Microsoft will want a licensing fee, which means competitors using Android can undercut me.
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 don't force phone manufacturers to use Android. They are perfectly free to go off and make their own OS like Samsung did with Bada and Tizen. Nothing stopping them from using Windows Phone OS, either. Google also don't prevent users from downloading and using alternative apps, either.
The EU are being barking mad on this one..
Only mad barking I see are your comments.
Tell PC vendors in the 90's that if they don't like Windows they're free to go and develop their own OS. Or sell PC's using Linux. Android is the dominant mobile OS (iOS can't be licensed) so that means vendors DON'T have a choice. It's Android or nothing. Just like PC vendors had a choice of Windows or nothing (dying).
So if I start up a small handset manufacturing company, tell me what my real world options are for an operating system at this point? You know, the ones which will actually ensure I'm competitive in the marketplace with other manufacturers. Windows perhaps, but Microsoft will want a licensing fee, which means competitors using Android can undercut me.
“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 license iOS to 3rd party's at all. So Apple can't dictate to anyone what their terms are. That's what's different. Not that I think Google is doing anything wrong either. No one is forcing you to use Android. Make Windows phones!!. Hell, create your own OS. Take a look at China or even Amazon. Using their own forked version of Android. Google has zero input!!
You can't have it both ways. Elect to use Google's services but then not have their apps and be front and center. That's the whole point. Our you create your own services and app store and kick Google to the curb. This is just another dumb lawsuit.
Comments
It's not the same situation at all. Google does not prevent handset manufacturers from installing their own apps. It just insists that they have to install the Google apps *as well*. Big difference. Plus, Android itself lets you choose which app to be used as the default, the first time and if you desire, every time an operation is performed that launches an app that implements an Android Intent. On Android, the first time an operation is performed Google's apps don't even get any kind of preference. They are shown in a list along with every other app that can satisfy the request.
The fact is that the vast majority of Android users simply prefer Google's versions to the mostly sub standard fare that Android OEMs like Samsung provide - hence the term bloatware is not directed at Google's offerings, but rather those of the OEMs.
Microsoft's license actively prevented a competitor's app (or OS) from being installed on the machine.
Apple owns iPhone.
Pretty obvious stuff guys.
Yes, I'd say there were a few more competitive OS choices for hardware manufacturers before Android existed. Many variants of Linux & BSD UNIX, QNX, Windows Mobile, etc. Most of those options are still there, but given the option of Android with everything it provides (Google Play ecosystem, complete vertical integration), it'd be commercial suicide for all but the biggest manufacturers to choose them.
That's an awful lot of talking without actually saying anything.
Tell me, can you do the following with Android?
- Sell a high-end Galaxy S7 with Android and all Google Apps/Services installed AND also sell a low-end Galaxy device (say for India or China) with a customized forked version of AOSP and no Google Apps/Services?
- Sell an Android device with SOME Google Apps/Services installed while removing others to be replaced by your own versions instead?
The EU are being barking mad on this one..
Or I start up a small app business and have a great idea for an app which triangulates phone locations better than anyone else and I'm looking to secure contracts with handset manufacturers?
The Microsoft issues started when they wouldn't allow OEM's from removing Internet Explorer off the desktop.
2) 92% of PCs shipped today have Windows installed on it. Why go back to 1998 and not just claim Microsoft is a "monopoly" today?
3) I said to list a company which doesn't use State power to enforce it's "monopoly" position. Microsoft profits are almost entirely dependent on the artificially created notion of "intellectual property", which, even from an historical perspective, are grants of monopoly privilege by the government. Its not something that exist without the government.
Only mad barking I see are your comments.
Tell PC vendors in the 90's that if they don't like Windows they're free to go and develop their own OS. Or sell PC's using Linux. Android is the dominant mobile OS (iOS can't be licensed) so that means vendors DON'T have a choice. It's Android or nothing. Just like PC vendors had a choice of Windows or nothing (dying).
You can't have it both ways. Elect to use Google's services but then not have their apps and be front and center. That's the whole point. Our you create your own services and app store and kick Google to the curb. This is just another dumb lawsuit.