[Update with Pricing] Google forces European Android OEMS to pay Up To $40 licensing fee per device for Google Apps

[ZacoAttaco]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They haven't. They've always been shit.

[paddy-stone]

10 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

From what I understand, Google make them bundle everything, so they can choose to have Google Play on it's own but as soon as they say want Google Calendar it forces them to take Gmail, Maps, Drive etc. So it's an all or nothing approach here.

 

Also, how did thread turn into a debate about Linux? All we need is someone to bring up how Intel's measurement of TDP is inaccurate and this thread will be going for days  

I'm joking of course, I enjoy it. I'm here to talk about tech and that's what happens 

Yeah I understand that, but what I'm saying is the end user can easily add in these services if they want them, or use a different app store, so google aren't doing themselves any favours IMO.

[Trixanity]

12 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

This is stupid. So EU lets apple do this and more because Apple has a true monopoly on all this through vertical integration, but because Google let's them do it for free in exchange for chrome and play store, its suddenly not ok?

 

Like do you guys not realize the hypocrisy there right?

 

Half the complaints about android are that the experience isnt unified, but EU wants to prevent Google from unifying the experience?

 

This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And some dumb idiots think the solution is somehow forcing a company to give up its IP and take everything open source? Are you fng kidding me?

 

 

Edit: look. I'm as pro EU as anyone out there. This is just fng stupid.

Apple is only a monopoly within their own ecosystem. That'd be like saying that Tesla (previously) was a monopoly because they were the only one making electric cars (worth buying). In the market as a whole Apple doesn't have a huge market share. You could argue that due to the brand strength that their position is disproportionally dominant - I could actually agree with that. They have more say than they should have.

 

I see a lot of misrepresentation of the situation. It all boils down to Google abusing their position to move everyone onto Google Search and Google Chrome. It's not about it being free or that Google has to charge money for it. Google could have solved it differently but their argument is that a lot of their revenue stems from use of Chrome and Search therefore in exchange for not bundling those apps, they'll charge money for access to the Play Store. It's similar to the same shit Microsoft got hit with: stop pre-installing Internet Explorer on Windows. It's literally the same basis for the problem.

 

There's also the fact that companies couldn't fork Android and still retain access to some or all of Google's products. So they'd have to use Google's Android to use Google's other services. There's a lot of legalese involved to keep companies within Google's sphere. Essentially you either straight up couldn't do your own thing if you're partnered with Google or if you could you'd be hamstrung to the point where the price would be too great to not use Google's ecosystem.

 

The new licensing fee is an attempt to punish the EU by increasing the costs for companies operating in the EU and therefore consumers in the EU. The EU is attempting to thwart technology giants from gaining full control of our lives. There is a price to pay for taking that fight. It'll be interesting to see the aftermath in a year or two. It's up to the individual to decide whether that fight is worth fighting and whether the price is too high.

[Doobeedoo]

Just, great. 

[laminutederire]

15 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

That is not only unpopular but straight out delusional. 

You can't force a company to give away their products for free lol.

 

That being said: Kinda happy Google is doing this. The EU went too far. They opened up the most used OS on the planet for others, in order to allow more players in the market due to low costs. All they asked for was having their services preinstalled (but removeable!).

 

That was VERY LITTLE to ask from Google and they still got charged for that. The only logical step was to just flat out not make it open anymore, but letting OEMs pay.

Sure, it will reduce competition, but that is what the EU wanted, right? I mean,... they knew this was going to happen, right?

 

Just sad that I have to pay a premium for this satisfaction since I am from the EU, but still: Happy they are lifting the middle finger to these crazy silly EU courts.

Since when are they removable though?...

[Drak3]

28 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Since when are they removable though?...

You have to root ypur phone, or you can disable them.

[Master Delta Chief]

16 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

That is not only unpopular but straight out delusional. 

You can't force a company to give away their products for free lol.

 

That being said: Kinda happy Google is doing this. The EU went too far. They opened up the most used OS on the planet for others, in order to allow more players in the market due to low costs. All they asked for was having their services preinstalled (but removeable!).

 

That was VERY LITTLE to ask from Google and they still got charged for that. The only logical step was to just flat out not make it open anymore, but letting OEMs pay.

Sure, it will reduce competition, but that is what the EU wanted, right? I mean,... they knew this was going to happen, right?

 

Just sad that I have to pay a premium for this satisfaction since I am from the EU, but still: Happy they are lifting the middle finger to these crazy silly EU courts.

By open source, it doesn't mean it exactly has to be free... You can have it open-source and yet let the customer pay for it. That money goes normally towards the dev's who maintain the application. So, in my eyes, they should've made it open source so that those who want to recreate it or perhaps maintain it, can do that. 

[laminutederire]

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You have to root ypur phone, or you can disable them.

Yeah so no way to delete them with what oem provide, that's my point. If you have to root that doesn't count in the eyes of those companies since you're not supposed to do it for them, so that's not in contracts between them and Google.

[dalekphalm]

20 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm not sure this was such a good idea and I think the European Comission should have forced Google to make all their Google Apps open source on Android.

... How would they even do this? There's absolutely no way that it would be legal for the EU Commission to force Google to make their own products Open Source. That would be an insane overreach of power.

 

Why would you even support such a thing?

19 hours ago, asus killer said:

android is crap, what we need is a good alternative. Opportunity for someone to come forward.

There were alternatives. WebOS (Anybody remember this? HP's Tablet that failed horribly. They now put WebOS on some TV's as the Smart OS), BB10 (really great at one thing, meh for the rest), and Windows Mobile (7/8/10). Windows Mobile was awesome. But the lack of apps (mostly Google refusing to port their services, nor let Microsoft port them for free), and the fact that Windows Mobile 10 was a bit on the buggy side, killed it.

 

However, it more people gave WM10 a chance, it could have easily been an equal competitor to Android and iOS.

[Commodus]

18 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

This is stupid. So EU lets apple do this and more because Apple has a true monopoly on all this through vertical integration, but because Google let's them do it for free in exchange for chrome and play store, its suddenly not ok?

 

Like do you guys not realize the hypocrisy there right?

 

Half the complaints about android are that the experience isnt unified, but EU wants to prevent Google from unifying the experience?

 

This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And some dumb idiots think the solution is somehow forcing a company to give up its IP and take everything open source? Are you fng kidding me?

 

 

Edit: look. I'm as pro EU as anyone out there. This is just fng stupid.

There's no hypocrisy at all -- it's just that many people don't understand what antitrust and monopolies are.

 

Apple has no third-party hardware vendors to strong-arm, and it certainly doesn't have a market monopoly in Europe (Android had 74.2 percent in Europe as of the end of 2017).  You can't commit antitrust abuses if you're both in the minority and have no one to abuse.

 

Google, however, has both a majority and loads of vendors.  Unless a company wants to take an Apple-style route and build its own OS from scratch, it effectively must use Android.  And since Android vendors outside of China know it's effectively corporate suicide to ship a phone without access to official Google apps, they're forced to agree to all of Google's terms, no matter how much they might want to skip Chrome or Google search.

 

Also, who's asking Google to give up its IP and make everything open source?  Not the EU.  It's just splitting up the licensing so that companies aren't forced to take Chrome and Google search simply to let you install Play Store apps or watch YouTube.

[Syfes]

22 hours ago, LinusOnLine said:

I spend way to much time turning off Google stuff on my phone so sounds like great news to me

Not really though, because most OEM's are still going to ship the phones with the apps preloaded. Difference is that they'll have to pay a licensing fee, which will probably end up adding to the cost of android phones in the EU.

[D13H4RD]

22 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

If i were google i would made them pay to even take a look at android! Android is Googles OS of cource it comes with it's own browser and services. The fact is chrome works the best on android. Nothing compares. Android without Google would not exist. Googles services is what makes it great OS.

Except Android is open-source. Anyone can take the source code and tweak it as they please. It's how custom firmware exists. And the truth is that only Google Services are proprietary and require manufacturers to follow a set of guidelines. However, Android can function perfectly fine without Google services. Look at the Amazon tablets. 

 

Also, Chrome works best on Android? Yeah, no. Sorry buddy but I've lately been getting a weird bug where Chrome goes pixelated and flat out won't load pages until I restart the app. I thought it was just my Note8 at first but it happened on my Moto Z as well, which had a factory reset not long ago. 

 

One more thing. Google Services is what makes it a great OS? Not the customization, tweakability, choice factor, and such? I can put Google Services on an iPhone too, you know. It won't work as well but let's not pretend that services you can get cross-platform makes an OS better. 

 

I hope you realize that Google didn't make Android as well. They bought it. 

[Brooksie359]

23 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Google is forcing Android OEMs operating within the European Economic Area (EEA) to pay a license fee for Google Services not bundled with stock Android AOSP.

 

Google is doing this as a result of the European Comission finding Google guilty of trying Chrome and Google Search to Android.

 

There are different bundles which contain different Google Apps and services.

 

One of these bundles simply contains Chrome and Google Search and is 100% totally free (gratis) but still requires signing tons of legal paperwork and Google's approval of the device.

 

The other bundle contains all the other major Google Apps such as Play Store, YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Play Services and other similar proprietary Google Apps. This bundle costs money and requires signing tons of paperwork and Google's approval of the device.

 

The aforementioned changes go live on October 29th.

 

 

I'm not sure this was such a good idea and I think the European Comission should have forced Google to make all their Google Apps open source on Android.

 

Although that's probably an unpopular opinion.

 

I'm hoping Android OEMs in the EEA will just eat up the new cost instead of passing it onto the consumer.

 

Source:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-licensing-bundle-chrome-search

I mean the European commission caused this so I don't think they can complain. Also I don't think the european commission could force Google to make their software open source. That would be the dumbest precedent that could be set. You can't just force a company to make their software open source as much as you can't make a company to make their products free. It makes 0 sense to force that. Anyways the european commission made a dumb decision with the whole Google chrome being standard with android. The whole thing was blown out of proportion because they weren't doing anything antitrust related imo. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

23 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Snip

Amazon has been doing it for what a decade in the US. Yep just looked it up. Amazon has been doing it for 11 years. Shipping forked android without google services.

 

OP made that explicit suggestion in his original post. That's who.

 

It's a free option. Dont want it? Make something else. It's stupid and ridiculous. This isn't microsoft (or apple) where they prevented people from using third party browsers. This isnt microsoft where they are charging for the product. 

 

Almost every single android product ships with alternative browsers as well. Snapdragon browser, or samsung browser, etc etc. Its a null argument.

 

There is absolutely no legal justification for a free product to be regulated as antitrust in this matter. Nothing but laziness stops these companies from using something else.

 

But hey, congrats EU, now google simply charges for its services and locks things down more instead. Very productive thinking. 

[Sauron]

23 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm hoping Android OEMs in the EEA will just eat up the new cost instead of passing it onto the consumer.

And I hope they give Google the middle finger and do NOT include their services.

[Trixanity]

41 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Amazon has been doing it for what a decade in the US. Yep just looked it up. Amazon has been doing it for 11 years. Shipping forked android without google services.

 

OP made that explicit suggestion in his original post. That's who.

 

It's a free option. Dont want it? Make something else. It's stupid and ridiculous. This isn't microsoft (or apple) where they prevented people from using third party browsers. This isnt microsoft where they are charging for the product. 

 

Almost every single android product ships with alternative browsers as well. Snapdragon browser, or samsung browser, etc etc. Its a null argument.

 

There is absolutely no legal justification for a free product to be regulated as antitrust in this matter. Nothing but laziness stops these companies from using something else.

 

But hey, congrats EU, now google simply charges for its services and locks things down more instead. Very productive thinking. 

You still don't understand the situation.

 

Amazon don't make devices with Play Services. FireOS is mostly a failure. The only sales it gets is through Amazon brute forcing the issue so it ain't saying much.

 

Microsoft never really forced anyone either. At best manipulated. This is a similar situation. You're strongly encouraged to use Chrome and Google Search on a common platform that Google controls. There are many ways to accomplish that and Google isn't holding back.

 

Besides Samsung, I think you're quite mistaken. Most so-called Snapdragon browsers that I'm aware of are Chromium based projects made by independent developers and not shipped with phones.

 

That's just it, isn't it? You say it's free yet the loss of Chrome and Search impacts their bottom line to the point where they have to charge for it? So are you sure you'll go with that?

 

Besides, companies that have signed on to use Play Services are limited in their capacity to "not be lazy".

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

You still don't understand the situation.

 

Amazon don't make devices with Play Services. FireOS is mostly a failure. The only sales it gets is through Amazon brute forcing the issue so it ain't saying much.

 

Microsoft never really forced anyone either. At best manipulated. This is a similar situation. You're strongly encouraged to use Chrome and Google Search on a common platform that Google controls. There are many ways to accomplish that and Google isn't holding back.

 

Besides Samsung, I think you're quite mistaken. Most so-called Snapdragon browsers that I'm aware of are Chromium based projects made by independent developers and not shipped with phones.

 

That's just it, isn't it? You say it's free yet the loss of Chrome and Search impacts their bottom line to the point where they have to charge for it? So are you sure you'll go with that?

 

Besides, companies that have signed on to use Play Services are limited in their capacity to "not be lazy".

Amazon explicitly tries to prevent users from installing play services because it wants the money instead. It has come out and said as much even (well more along the Sony line of, we want our users to have the best experience blah blah blah)

 

Amazon is the third largest tablet seller world wide after Apple and Samsung with 17million devices sold in 2017 alone. That's not exactly a failure. 

 

LG phones internationally ship with the default browser being "browser". Hauwai devices outside the US (and some inside depending on source) also comes with some stock browser labeled "browser", which is a pain since EMUI can often make it much harder to  swap to anything else. I honestly dont think I've seen a non-nexus/pixel android phone outside the US (and many within, including all of my personal devices) ship with only one browser, where that browser was chrome.

 

 

Google is choosing to charge as a result explicitly to punish the decision (pass down costs to users which then brings it to mind and people get upset about it). It isn't even about the cost, because it has such an engrained mind share, most users would probably go out of their way to install chrome etc anyways.

 

I understand the "issue", but its bullshit and this is stupid.

[mr moose]

On 10/17/2018 at 6:53 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

I'd be fine if they just shipped without the Google services, and then you just get the very few ones you actually want with openGaps or whatever

As an out of the box user, it has always annoyed me that I have to have a google account, MS account or apple account  in order to use my smartphone and get apps.  The concept of side loading is not for the average consumer an alternative to the main app stores is popular the average user also likely won't go looking for it.

 

So I do agree it would be nice if they would ship phones like that, but alas we are tied to whatever makes those companies the most money, especially users like myself. 

 

[jagdtigger]

On 10/16/2018 at 10:39 PM, mate_mate91 said:

You can run arch linux, or ubuntu, or manjaro by chrooting it

Android can do it as well if you install busybox.... (and root it ofc)

[Linus_torvalds]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Android can do it as well if you install busybox.... (and root it ofc)

That's the thing. You know what you need to use root on Sailfish? sudo (devel-su) command like in normal linux distro! Android is not a linux! It's just using linux kernel that's it. Other then that it does not have any linux features. It is not even as light as linux distros are on PC. Java crap needs shitload of RAM and CPU cores. Android is gurbage!

[ZacoAttaco]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Android can do it as well if you install busybox.... (and root it ofc)

1 hour ago, mate_mate91 said:

That's the thing. You know what you need to use root on Sailfish? sudo (devel-su) command like in normal linux distro! Android is not a linux! It's just using linux kernel that's it. Other then that it does not have any linux features. It is not even as light as linux distros are on PC. Java crap needs shitload of RAM and CPU cores. Android is gurbage!

Also wasn't there a story about Oppo or Honor or something basically bricking your device if you try and root it? They were actively trying to block your root? So I don't know if rooting your device is a real solution. I don't know if Android is Linux either...

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Amazon explicitly tries to prevent users from installing play services because it wants the money instead. It has come out and said as much even (well more along the Sony line of, we want our users to have the best experience blah blah blah)

 

Amazon is the third largest tablet seller world wide after Apple and Samsung with 17million devices sold in 2017 alone. That's not exactly a failure. 

 

LG phones internationally ship with the default browser being "browser". Hauwai devices outside the US (and some inside depending on source) also comes with some stock browser labeled "browser", which is a pain since EMUI can often make it much harder to  swap to anything else. I honestly dont think I've seen a non-nexus/pixel android phone outside the US (and many within, including all of my personal devices) ship with only one browser, where that browser was chrome.

 

 

Google is choosing to charge as a result explicitly to punish the decision (pass down costs to users which then brings it to mind and people get upset about it). It isn't even about the cost, because it has such an engrained mind share, most users would probably go out of their way to install chrome etc anyways.

 

I understand the "issue", but its bullshit and this is stupid.

If you understand the issue you're not really displaying said understanding. You can disagree with something but that doesn't mean you argue against a false premise.

 

You've proven my point regarding Amazon: they're not in the same market therefore not applicable to the situation.

They subsidize tablets and shove them in your face. That's the only reason for the sales. If it was any other company it would have folded. Also, Fire Phone called; it asks where all its users have gone.

 

Amazon aren't bound by the same agreements mainstream (ie Play Services devices) Android is. Therefore it's not an argument.

 

I'm typing this from a Huawei device. Chrome is the only browser on it. I'm quite sure it's the same for Sony. I'm sure it's the same for HTC. I'd be surprised if LG still ships the aosp browser. I'm referring to devices shipped in the last two years specifically. Why? The aosp browser was phased out. Most companies agreed to ship Chrome instead. When I search for vendor browsers all the results are from years ago; many of them about them killing browsers. So it's simply not true.

 

Going out of their way to install Chrome is in fact the entire point. It forces the consumer to make a choice and hopefully to consider their options. With chrome pre-installed people usually use what's immediately available/recommended; in this case chrome. However what the EU fails to realize is that the damage is already done. We're creatures of habit. Chrome has become the most popular without any meaningful fight so that's what people will stick to.

 

Do you recall how Chrome came to be the most popular browser on desktop? Nagging you every time you use Google search about Chrome and bundling itself with every piece of free software imaginable. 

[bcredeur97]

hmm is google going to try to be apple? do their own hardware + software by slowly forcing people out?

[Curufinwe_wins]

40 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

If you understand the issue you're not really displaying said understanding. You can disagree with something but that doesn't mean you argue against a false premise.

 

You've proven my point regarding Amazon: they're not in the same market therefore not applicable to the situation.

They subsidize tablets and shove them in your face. That's the only reason for the sales. If it was any other company it would have folded. Also, Fire Phone called; it asks where all its 

Amazon is literally the example that EU is somehow trying to force others to get to. They take Android, and are opt in for all the other google stuff. Its crap and it sucks. I don't want it. Amazon is bound to all the same rules and regulations that others are. Amazon is at least trying to work without it. And it's bad for consumers as is. Honestly, it would be well within Google's rights to just withhold the operating system. Just as Apple doesn't let other devices install MacOS or iOS. That doesn't help anyone.

 

Chrome came to the forefront because firefox was more feature deficient and a huge utilization hog (ironic isnt it...) and ie was literally worthless, opera being paid ware until almost too late. It got popular because it was hilariously better than everything else in the freeware market. It forced Mozilla into a release cadence it couldn't keep up with. Maybe you dont remember the years of broswer and search engine wars... I do.  It was hard fought and well won. I held out on yahoo/askjeeves for quite a while past that point, but I think it's pretty unreasonable to suggest it happened without a fight. 

 

More fragmentation and destandardization of the android device space is quite literally the worst case situation at this point. The already lax rules that google employs which allow device makers to sidestep implementations that should be universal, experiences that should be universal is the single biggest issue the platform has left. 

 

I guess that's what I'm getting at, what I'm really bothered by, in the end. The end goal of antitrust legislation is supposed to be helping consumers through competition. This implementation of legislation does nothing but hurt consumers. Nothing. It doesn't and wont help competition. The existing competition to Android is even more locked down and anti-consumer than Google is.

 

 

Edit: I'll have to confess, I wasn't aware as you say that asop browsers are disappearing. Though this suit does not suggest or try to suggest that Google is preventing them from being attached, so the only reason they wouldnt keep being sent out is if development didnt seem needed or useful anymore. Which is a "just lazy" moment really. I'm on a s9+ myself which still has it, and most of other devices I've used/seen from friends are at least 2 years old, so it's certainly possible that's why I have seen them still.

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

Java crap needs shitload of RAM and CPU cores. Android is gurbage!

My phone is using like 800MB total out of the 1,66 GB. Its not that unreasonable.

 

9 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

It's just using linux kernel that's it.

Which means it is linux, and just like in normal linux you have to install the tools you need(busybox). Time to face reality  .