Google meets...

[thx-1138]

...Borgen

https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1019537297925197824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrethe ... sonal_life

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/1 ... r_android/

[Pierre]

the EU is very keen on taking on some of the Big Players:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/the-lar ... oogle.html
it's not Just Microsoft and Google - - Y'know . .

[michael louwe]

Imagine Google pulling out her Android OS from the EU market and let the Europeans be forced to buy super-expensive iOS iPhones and iPads.

Google has already pulled out Google Search from the China market = the Chineans are forced to use localized government-censored search engines like Baidu.

The EU does not seem to appreciate the business model adopted by Google, ie offering users free use of software in return for Digital ad revenue from users' 'eyeballs' and anonymized surfing data, eg free Google Search, Maps, Chrome, Android, etc, - similar to the business model of free-to-air TV companies.

[gm10]

The EU does not seem to appreciate the business model adopted by Google,

Yes, and rightly so, because Google is forcing this onto everybody.

You get Linux Mint for free as well, but if the Mint team decided to add forced tracking of Google proportions into the OS: nobody would use it. Not so easy to do on smartphones.

[thx-1138]

Imagine Google pulling out her Android OS from the EU market and let the Europeans be forced to buy super-expensive iOS iPhones and iPads.

1)...kinda doubt Google would ever be willing to loose...512.6 million customers.
2)...imagine if some EU-located company ever came up with it's own alternative...

Google has already pulled out Google Search from the China market = the Chineans are forced to use localized government-censored search engines like Baidu.

...ehmmm, EU is not...PRC (to state the obvious)...

The EU does not seem to appreciate the business model adopted by Google, ie offering users free use of software in return for Digital ad revenue from users' 'eyeballs' and anonymized surfing data, eg free Google Search, Maps, Chrome, Android, etc, - similar to the business model of free-to-air TV companies.

...i assume then you also liked the Windows Media Player & IE that were forcefully included with Windows.
Nowadays, per your description above, Microsoft is also 'offering users free use of software,
in return for Digital ad revenue from users' 'eyeballs' and anonymized surfing data ' : that's exactly what Win10 is...
But well...if you consider Google's monopoly practices & data mining as 'fair trade', well, what can i say...

[Moem]

...imagine if some EU-located company ever came up with it's own alternative...

... Shut up and take my money.

[michael louwe]

...imagine if some EU-located company ever came up with it's own alternative...

... Shut up and take my money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailfish_OS , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Touch

[thx-1138]

...and soon (from California): https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
Gotta love their EULA (if i could call it this way)...

[michael louwe]

The EU does not seem to appreciate the business model adopted by Google,

Yes, and rightly so, because Google is forcing this onto everybody.

You get Linux Mint for free as well, but if the Mint team decided to add forced tracking of Google proportions into the OS: nobody would use it. Not so easy to do on smartphones.

If Google is forcing, then Linux Mint is also forcing this onto everybody, ie by preinstalling Firefox, LibreOffice, Timeshift, Software Manager, etc.

Google's Android smartphones allow the users to use any search engine, browser, apps(including side-loaded apps, like LM's PPAs), etc besides Google's preinstalled ones.

[michael louwe]

...i assume then you also liked the Windows Media Player & IE that were forcefully included with Windows.
Nowadays, per your description above, Microsoft is also 'offering users free use of software,
in return for Digital ad revenue from users' 'eyeballs' and anonymized surfing data ' : that's exactly what Win10 is....

.
Windows 10 is not ... Android(to state the obvious). Win 10 is not free. Android is free.
....... Cable or Satellite TV is not free. Free-to-air TV is free, eg ABC, CBS and FOX is free to watch.

[thx-1138]

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments ... id_has_90/
So much 'free', that it's generated 655 comments of enthusiasm & still counting...

Also...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/07/1 ... -decision/
Last I checked, Mozilla's headquarters were neighboring Google's, over at California (ie. neither in EU, nor in...PRC).

[michael louwe]

@ thx-1138, .......

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments ... id_has_90/
So much 'free', that it's generated 655 comments of enthusiasm & still counting....

.

Amazon Fire OS is an Android-based mobile operating system produced by Amazon for its Fire Phone and Kindle Fire range of tablets, Echo and Echo Dot, and other content delivery devices like Fire TV; the tablet versions of the Kindle e-readers are the Fire range. It is forked from Android. Fire OS primarily centers on content consumption, with a customized user interface and heavy ties to content available from Amazon's own storefronts and services.

Fire OS devices are exclusively tied to Amazon's software and content ecosystems; they do not offer the Google Play Store or come pre-installed with any other of Google's proprietary apps or APIs, such as Google Maps or Google Cloud Messaging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_OS
.
I think it is quite reasonable for Google to exclude Play Store from any of her OEM partners who want to license an Android fork, ie the OEMs have the choice to go with Google's Android ecosystem or Amazon's Android fork aka FireOS ecosystem.
....... Also, Google is not stopping her OEM partners from also licensing Windows 10 Mobile or Blackberry or Jolla's Sailfish OS or Canonical's Ubuntu Touch or Mozilla Firefox OS or Purism's Librem.
....... In the end, about 70% of world mobile device users chose Google's Android, and not Amazon's Fire(d)OS or M$'s Win 10 Mobile. That's how the free-market works. No OEM or user is being forced to use Google's Android or her other free software.

Compared to M$ and her Win 10 OEM partners, Google is much more open to user-freedom and free-market-competition, eg in 2012, M$ mandated all her Win 8 OEM partners to only sell new computers with UEFI/Secure Boot technology = quite difficult to install Linux as dual-boot and/or dual-drives systems. Imagine if Secure Boot could not be disabled.
.
.

Also...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/07/1 ... -decision/
Last I checked, Mozilla's headquarters were neighboring Google's, over at California (ie. neither in EU, nor in...PRC).

Maybe Mozilla is a sore loser, ie having lost out to Google's Android with her Firefox OS.

Of course, Google's competitors like Mozilla, are cheering and gloating over the EU decision, like vultures hovering over an injured animal.

[thx-1138]

Maybe Mozilla is a sore loser, ie having lost out to Google's Android with her Firefox OS.
Of course, Google's competitors like Mozilla, are cheering and gloating over the EU decision, like vultures hovering over an injured animal.

Google Revenue 2017 = 109.65 billion $
Mozilla Revenue 2017 = 520.4 million $

Surely someone can't really compete in the same game with someone who has...220 times more assets?
Sore losers they might be...but seems to me someone else is the vulture here.

That's how the free-market works. No OEM or user is being forced to use Google's Android or her other free software.

...huh? http://www.businessinsider.com/margreth ... gle-2015-4
Note the date - April 20, 2015, that's more than 3 yrs before.
Did you read the Commission's press release?

In particular, Google:

• has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

• made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

• has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

...do you really believe all those fat cats over at Bruxelles,
would make such accusations without actually having gathered hard evidence & data for Google during those 3+ years?

[michael louwe]

@ thx-1138, .......

In particular, Google:

has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

....do you really believe all those fat cats over at Bruxelles,
would make such accusations without actually having gathered hard evidence & data for Google during those 3+ years?

Like I said before, Google's Digital ads-business model requires her to impose those conditions on her OEM partners for getting the privilege to preinstall Android for free. Like they say, "There is no free lunch in this world". The OEMs have the freedom of choice to not use Google's Android, eg use Win 10 Mobile, Blackberry OS, Ubuntu Touch, Firefox OS, Amazon's FireOS, Jolla's Sailffish OS, Linux Foundation's Tizen OS, etc.

I see the above conditions as Google pulling out from OEMs who do not subscribe to her Digital ads-business model and not as Google using her market dominance to force the OEMs, similar to how Google Search has pulled out from the China-market of 1.3billion users over the issue of government censorship of search results. ... http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/03 ... index.html (Winners and losers of Google's China search pullout - By Lara Farrar, for CNN; March 24, 2010)

[smurphos]

• has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

• made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

• has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

I use and appreciate Google Services and live with the privacy concerns / implications. I find this quite interesting.

Points 2 and 3 are definitely justified as being anti-competitive.

I'm not so sure about point 1 as written, although the requirements go beyond just having them preinstalled - they also have to be presented front and centre in the devices default state on first boot-up.

I can see this going a similar way to MS's big fine over IE, and the changes to Windows as a result a number of years ago - the compromise will be that yes the Google services have to be preinstalled to allow Playstore access, but OEM's are free to ship alternatives and the OS set-up screens will have to include screens specifically prompting the user to select default services from those preinstalled where there is a choice.

It will be interesting to see which if any OEMs start to look at forking and providing a Google free Android for some devices - I reckon Samsung will give it a go. Quality, safety and privacy of alternative app stores/google services, along with security updates for forked versions will be the issue for end-users.

[andyO]

In particular, Google:

has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

I read point 3, as saying that Google would not allow an OEM to sell a device running an alternative version of Android if they wanted to also sell a device running stock Android with Google Apps installed. In other words if Samsung sold a phone using Lineage OS, then google would prevent them from installing google apps on *any* phone they sold. I think that is a pretty clear definition of anti-competitive practices and the worst of the three points in my opinion. (note: I have no qualification in law etc)

[michael louwe]

@ smurphos, .......

* made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

* has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

Points 2 and 3 are definitely justified as being anti-competitive..

No.
.

Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google, based on a modified version of the Linux kernel and other open source software and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. In addition, Google has further developed Android TV for televisions, Android Auto for cars, and Wear OS for wrist watches, each with a specialized user interface. Variants of Android are also used on game consoles, digital cameras, PCs and other electronics. ...

Android is also associated with a suite of proprietary software developed by Google, including core apps for services such as Gmail and Google Search, as well as the application store and digital distribution platform Google Play, and associated development platform. These apps are licensed by manufacturers of Android devices certified under standards imposed by Google, ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_( ... ng_system)

As the proprietary owner and "developer" of Android and its associated core apps, I think Google has the right to impose terms & conditions(T&C) on OEMs who want to license Android for free. If the OEMs do not like Google's T&C, they can always license other mobile OS. Google did not force the OEMs to license Android.
....... In comparison, besides the OEMs, M$ even imposes T&C on her non-free and proprietary Windows 10/8.1/7 & M$/Windows Store users.

It is also based on the free-market economy for Google to pay OEMs and Telcos to preinstall free Google software. But Android mobile device users can still choose to use non-Google software, eg use Bing/DuckDuckGo, Firefox/Dolphin browser, side-load apps, etc.

It is not a crime or illegal to be a market winner and to enjoy the fruits of her labor, eg rich profits and advantageous market position - Google Search, Maps, Chrome, Android, etc.
....... During the late 1990s, as a company, Google's Search and Digital ad revenue started from nothing. Because of Google's superior search engine, it eventually won over the masses/users and beat out Yahoo Search, MSN Search, Ask.com, etc. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine Similar story for Google's Chrome browser.

[michael louwe]

@ andyO, .......

I read point 3, ... .

.

In today's Statement of Objections, the Commission alleges that Google has breached EU antitrust rules by:

1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

3. preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

2. giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
.
Point 3 was actually referring to Amazon's FireOS, an Android fork that is packaged just like Google's Android but under Amazon's full control = like a clone or copy of Google's Android.

[andyO]

@michael louwe

Okay, in the link, you pasted, the point I was referring to is point 2. Anyway, we were both discussing the same point.

preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

I understand that the specific example referred to in news sources was FireOS, the example I described was just meant to be an "i.e. or made up" example illustrating what the EU was describing. Apologies if I did not make that completely clear. They amount to the same thing though. If the description in the EU's notes is correct, Google is attempting to prevent OEMs selling devices using open source Android code by abusing their dominant market position.

[andyO]

This is the part that really "gets my goat", (bolding is mine) quoted from:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm

Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called "Android fork"). However, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks.