Google gives response to EU antitrust investigation into Android

[Syntaxvgm]

http://googleblog.blogspot.be/2015/04/android-has-helped-create-more-choice.html

 

 

 

 

Android has helped create more choice and innovation on mobile than ever before

 

 

It's hard to believe, but smartphones barely existed ten years ago. People used feature phones, which had very basic functionality, and were a nightmare for developers. The only way to build apps was device by device and platform by platform—Google had a closet full of hundreds of phones that we tested one by one each time we wanted to launch new software.

Android was born from this frustration. We hoped that by offering a great, free open-source operating system, we could turbocharge innovation by allowing manufacturers and developers to focus on what they do best. At the time, most people thought this plan was nuts.

Fast forward to today. The pace of mobile innovation has never been greater. Smartphones are being adopted globally at an increasingly fast pace, with over hundreds of millions shipped each quarter, and the average smartphone price fell 23% between 2012 and 2014. It’s now possible to purchase a powerful smartphone, without subsidies or contracts, for under $100. And the app ecosystem has exploded, giving consumers more choice than ever before.

Android has been a key player in spurring this competition and choice, lowering prices and increasing choice for everyone (there are over 18,000 different devices available today);

It’s an open-source operating system that can be used free-of-charge by anyone—that’s right, literally anyone. And it’s not just phones. Today people are building almost anything with Android—including tablets, watches, TVs, cars, and more. Some Android devices use Google services, and others do not.
Our Google Play store contains over one million apps and we paid out over $7 billion in revenue over the past year to developers and content publishers.
Apps that compete directly with Google such as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft Office, and Expedia are easily available to Android users. Indeed many of these apps come pre-loaded onto Android devices in addition to Google apps. The recent Samsung S6 is a great example of this, including pre-installed apps from Facebook, Microsoft, and Google.
Developers have a choice of platforms and over 80% of developers are building apps for several different mobile operating systems.

The European Commission has asked questions about our partner agreements. It's important to remember that these are voluntary—again, you can use Android without Google—but provide real benefits to Android users, developers and the broader ecosystem.

Anti-fragmentation agreements, for example, ensure apps work across all sorts of different Android devices. (After all, it would be pretty frustrating if an app you downloaded on one phone didn’t also work on your eventual replacement phone.) And our app distribution agreements make sure that people get a great "out of the box" experience with useful apps right there on the home screen (how many of us could get through our day without maps or email?). This also helps manufacturers of Android devices compete with Apple, Microsoft and other mobile ecosystems that come preloaded with similar baseline apps. And remember that these distribution agreements are not exclusive, and Android manufacturers install their own apps and apps from other companies as well. And in comparison to Apple—the world’s most profitable (mobile) phone company—there are far fewer Google apps pre-installed on Android phones than Apple apps on iOS devices.

We are thankful for Android’s success and we understand that with success comes scrutiny. But it's not just Google that has benefited from Android's success. The Android model has let manufacturers compete on their unique innovations. Developers can reach huge audiences and build strong businesses. And consumers now have unprecedented choice at ever-lower prices. We look forward to discussing these issues in more detail with the European Commission over the months ahead.

Posted by Hiroshi Lockheimer, VP of Engineering, Android

 

 

 

This is in response to the statement of objections to Google based on the android claims (not the search ones where Google shouldn't promote Google services on Google)

The statement of objections for both comparison shopping and Android can be read here. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm

 

 

More specifically, on the basis of the information currently available to the Commission, the investigation will at this stage focus on the following three allegations:

 

1.whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival mobile applications or services by requiring or incentivising smartphone and tablet manufacturers to exclusively pre-install Google’s own applications or services;
2.whether Google has prevented smartphone and tablet manufacturers who wish to install Google's applications and services on some of their Android devices from developing and marketing modified and potentially competing versions of Android (so-called “Android forks”) on other devices, thereby illegally hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems and mobile applications or services;
3.whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival applications and services by tying or bundling certain Google applications and services distributed on Android devices with other Google applications, services and/or application programming interfaces of Google.

 

 

 

 

 

I just....I don't have much to say about this. I'm going to see if I can shower the cancer off. Seeya

[elecxonica]

All I can think while reading this is why go after Google, when apple only allows app installation from one source which happens to have very heavy curation, and basically only allows you to use easily their in house apps for most things (they have admittedly been getting better recently though).

[Syntaxvgm]

All I can think while reading this is why go after Google, when apple only allows app installation from one source which happens to have very heavy curation, and basically only allows you to use easily their in house apps for most things (they have admittedly been getting better recently though).

Because Steve jobs  was a perfect person despite being a terrible human being. Actaully, the EU has targeted Apple, MS, and Amazon as well

[elecxonica]

Because Steve jobs  was a perfect person despite being a terrible human being. Actaully, the EU has targeted Apple, MS, and Amazon as well

I see. Disregard my comment then, never heard about Amazon and Apple.

[Syntaxvgm]

I see. Disregard my comment then, never heard about Amazon and Apple.

it wasn't about ios I think it was sales tactics. 

[Sunako]

I for one think the EU  going after Google for making offering a second operating system for mobile and being punished for it 

is just as bad as what they did  forcing Microsoft to sell windows without IE or media players installed. Those were bonuses to 

Software package not stifling competition.

[Ralms]

I for one think the EU  going after Google for making offering a second operating system for mobile and being punished for it 

is just as bad as what they did  forcing Microsoft to sell windows without IE or media players installed. Those were bonuses to 

Software package not stifling competition.

 

They didnt attack Microsoft because of selling their OS with IE, to the point it still does come with IE. 

EU claim, and rightfully so, was about Windows not giving an option to their users about what browser they wanted to use. That is why the browser option started showing up in windows.

[bobhays]

They didnt attack Microsoft because of selling their OS with IE, to the point it still does come with IE. 

EU claim, and rightfully so, was about Windows not giving an option to their users about what browser they wanted to use. That is why the browser option started showing up in windows.

Can you explain more? I've never heard of this. From your comment i'm thinking that this was the problem, Microsoft had IE preinstalled on the computer which means that the user had to use IE until they got another browser, basically forcing the use of IE. Or is it that even if they installed another browser the user couldn't select which one was the default browser?

[bobhays]

I think the EU's claim on the Android bundling Google's apps is ridiculous. If Google is developing the operating system why are they not allowed to ship it with their own applications. If they didn't have a play store and you could ONLY download apps made by Google this would not be an issue because there is no competition, but because anyone can develop an Android app it is now somehow bad to have preinstalled Google apps?

 

It's like saying that a TV channel that makes two shows cannot advertise one show on the other because it is preventing people from being exposed to competing TV shows.

 

I genuinely hope that there is some other reason because from what I have read their claims are just stupid.

[elecxonica]

Can you explain more? I've never heard of this. From your comment i'm thinking that this was the problem, Microsoft had IE preinstalled on the computer which means that the user had to use IE until they got another browser, basically forcing the use of IE. Or is it that even if they installed another browser the user couldn't select which one was the default browser?

It's more the first one, but not exactly. It's not so much that you had to use Internet Explorer, but more an issue that it was so integrated into the OS that it was "anti competitive". hence forth they had to remove some things such as the address toolbar, as well as provide an option for what browser you wanted to use when it installed. A similar thing happened with Media Player, but it was simply removed from any of the "N" editions of windows.

[LAwLz]

I think the EU's claim on the Android bundling Google's apps is ridiculous. If Google is developing the operating system why are they not allowed to ship it with their own applications. If they didn't have a play store and you could ONLY download apps made by Google this would not be an issue because there is no competition, but because anyone can develop an Android app it is now somehow bad to have preinstalled Google apps?

 

It's like saying that a TV channel that makes two shows cannot advertise one show on the other because it is preventing people from being exposed to competing TV shows.

 

I genuinely hope that there is some other reason because from what I have read their claims are just stupid.

The investigation (as in, "we are looking into if this is true before we do anything") are about these three things:

 

1) whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival mobile applications or services by requiring or incentivising smartphone and tablet manufacturers to exclusively pre-install Google’s own applications or services;

2) whether Google has prevented smartphone and tablet manufacturers who wish to install Google's applications and services on some of their Android devices from developing and marketing modified and potentially competing versions of Android (so-called “Android forks”) on other devices, thereby illegally hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems and mobile applications or services;

3) whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival applications and services by tying or bundling certain Google applications and services distributed on Android devices with other Google applications, services and/or application programming interfaces of Google.

[FakezZ]

All I can think while reading this is why go after Google, when apple only allows app installation from one source which happens to have very heavy curation, and basically only allows you to use easily their in house apps for most things (they have admittedly been getting better recently though).

And not only that. They also force you to use itunes to sync your stuff, which works really bad on Windows, not to mention that it does not support linux...

[FakezZ]

The investigation (as in, "we are looking into if this is true before we do anything") are about these three things:

 

1) whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival mobile applications or services by requiring or incentivising smartphone and tablet manufacturers to exclusively pre-install Google’s own applications or services;

2) whether Google has prevented smartphone and tablet manufacturers who wish to install Google's applications and services on some of their Android devices from developing and marketing modified and potentially competing versions of Android (so-called “Android forks”) on other devices, thereby illegally hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems and mobile applications or services;

3) whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival applications and services by tying or bundling certain Google applications and services distributed on Android devices with other Google applications, services and/or application programming interfaces of Google.

Well Google made the damn OS, it is their right to force manufacturers that wanna use it to install their services. Besides, they could just use something like AOSP if they didn't want their Google overlords telling them what to do...

[Ralms]

Can you explain more? I've never heard of this. From your comment i'm thinking that this was the problem, Microsoft had IE preinstalled on the computer which means that the user had to use IE until they got another browser, basically forcing the use of IE. Or is it that even if they installed another browser the user couldn't select which one was the default browser?

 

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-eu-microsoft-idUSBRE92500520130306

"(Reuters) - The European Union fined Microsoft Corp 561 million euros ($731 million) on Wednesday for failing to offer users a choice of web browser, an unprecedented sanction that will act as a warning to other firms involved in EU antitrust disputes.

It said the U.S. software company had broken a legally binding commitment made in 2009 to ensure that consumers had a choice of how they access the internet, rather than defaulting to Microsoft's Explorer browser.

An investigation found that Microsoft had failed to honor that obligation in software issued between May 2011 and July 2012, meaning 15 million users were not given a choice.

[ManWithBeard1990]

All I can think of is... Does Symbian still exist?

[Trik'Stari]

I wish that the EU could somehow get  their hands on our ISP's here in the US.

 

Wouldn't make any sense, but it would be damned funny.

[Speedbird]

They didnt attack Microsoft because of selling their OS with IE, to the point it still does come with IE. 

EU claim, and rightfully so, was about Windows not giving an option to their users about what browser they wanted to use. That is why the browser option started showing up in windows.

The browser option is only in N editions of Windows, which aren't really popular because the regular editions are still available and customers don't see any difference.

[LAwLz]

The browser option is only in N editions of Windows, which aren't really popular because the regular editions are still available and customers don't see any difference.

Not true. The browser options are in all Windows versions in the EU.

[Speedbird]

Not true. The browser options are in all Windows versions in the EU.

No. I have a non-N copy of Windows 8.1, see no browser options. I have had 2 PCs with Windows 7 preinstalled, no browser options. I have a Windows 8 laptop, no browser options. They are only in N editions. I have used a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate N before, that had options. If they all did have them, what would the N editions be for?

[LAwLz]

No. I have a non-N copy of Windows 8.1, see no browser options. I have had 2 PCs with Windows 7 preinstalled, no browser options. I have a Windows 8 laptop, no browser options. They are only in N editions. I have used a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate N before, that had options. If they all did have them, what would the N editions be for?

Well I have gotten the browser choice popup on all the Windows installs I have done.

Perhaps you don't have a version of Windows intended to be sold in the EU (except your N version of course)? I don't think the browser choice appears in US versions for example.

 

The N version was only made for the WMP antitrust case, not the browser case. Here is a citation from Microsoft's website:

What's not include

The N editions of Windows 7 have all the features that normally come with each individual Windows 7 edition, except for Windows Media Player 12 and related programs, such as Windows Media Center or Windows DVD Maker. You'll need to install a media player or other software to play or create audio CDs, digital media files, and video DVDs; organize content in a media library; create playlists; convert audio CDs to digital media files; view artist and title information of digital media files; view album art of music files; transfer music to personal music players; or record and play back TV broadcasts.

As you can see, there is no mention of browsers.

[Victorious Secret]

All I can think while reading this is why go after Google, when apple only allows app installation from one source which happens to have very heavy curation, and basically only allows you to use easily their in house apps for most things (they have admittedly been getting better recently though).

 

 

Apple doesn't have a OEM system. There are no partners. Its just them. They can't force anyone to do anything, like Google does with play services, because its only Apple who makes the devices. 

 

Going after Apple for not allowing you to install whatever you want is the definition of idiocy, IMHO. 

[Misanthrope]

Interesting: in the past Google let others run rampant with Android but a few months back they started a push to normalize the platform, remember their request to Samsung to tune down on their UI mods? Maybe it involved money and hence the EU considers that a big no no.

[Syntaxvgm]

Apple doesn't have a OEM system. There are no partners. Its just them. They can't force anyone to do anything, like Google does with play services, because its only Apple who makes the devices. 

 

Going after Apple Google for not allowing you to install do whatever you want is the definition of idiocy, IMHO. 

[Speedbird]

Well I have gotten the browser choice popup on all the Windows installs I have done.

Perhaps you don't have a version of Windows intended to be sold in the EU (except your N version of course)? I don't think the browser choice appears in US versions for example.

 

The N version was only made for the WMP antitrust case, not the browser case. Here is a citation from Microsoft's website:

As you can see, there is no mention of browsers.

What ISO are you using? And there is no version made for Europe, other than the N version. And I have no idea why browsers aren't mentioned. Very soon I will be installing Windows 7 Professional N, so we'll see about that.

[LAwLz]

What ISO are you using? And there is no version made for Europe, other than the N version. And I have no idea why browsers aren't mentioned. Very soon I will be installing Windows 7 Professional N, so we'll see about that.

Yes there are "versions intended to be sold in EU". For example there is a Swedish version which only comes with the Swedish language. That's what I meant when I said "intended to be sold in the EU".

The ISOs I have used are probably the US ones so I guess it depends on your locale or perhaps the Windows update server you connect to.

 

But I am 100% sure that the N version was made specifically for the media player, not the browser choice, and that you do get the browser choice even on non-N versions.

 

 

Wait never mind. It appears that newer installs of Windows no longer get the browser choice.

Here is one of my VMs where you can clearly see that I do not have an N version of Windows and I still got the browser choice update.