[NiKMic]

I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled (because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but would making the app uninstallable solve this issue? I know that on Windows I only use IE to install Chrome, then I ignore it for ever.

I think that it is only fair that Android are allowed to bundle soft of their software with each Android release. Then again, I hate bloat ware so I kind of understand that point of view too. Maybe Android versions can ship a blank OS (no pre-bundled apps) and you have the option to opt-in to a 'suggested' package which would include apps such as Chrome, search function etc.

I'm not 100% sure I understood the EU commission's problem here (or rather why they targeted specifically Android/Google). Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

[kyrra]

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm

The key points:

> 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;

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

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

[Bjartr]

It's the second and third points that I take issue (with Google) on. The first seems a reasonable way to try to ensure that if manufacturers want to benefit from the ecosystem Google has built they have to provide users with the experience Google intended. Less than that can reflect poorly on Google if the manufacturer provided ecosystem integration is lackluster or even intentionally restricted.

The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.

[zmmmmm]

I don't really have a problem with Google giving incentives for exclusivity of Google Search on devices. As long as that's voluntary for carriers / OEMs to enter into and other search alternatives have the same opportunity then that's just business. In a way I would see it as more of a problem if Google was requiring it without giving incentives. That would be evidence of an abuse of market power.

Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.

[patrickaljord]

> 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;

Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...

[ocdtrekkie]

Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.

[patrickaljord]

The open source community is terrible at UX, Android is the first usable mobile OS based on linux with a good UX and I'm typing this from my Ubuntu laptop. Second, Android is already available as open source and there are a few open source distro, they are not thriving. Finally, we're all greedy so let's not be judgmental here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[wstrange]

I think you are underestimating the amount of work that goes into producing a high quality mobile O/S.

Someone has to fund that effort.

[ocdtrekkie]

And various interests building products based on Android will fund it or directly contribute. Note: Development on Linux happens.

[victorhooi]

Yes, and it's totally the year of the Linux desktop....not.

Look, I love Linux as much as the next guy - and I plodded along with Slackware, then Ubuntu, then Arch as my main machine for many years. Heck, I even used Gentoo as my main box for a while.

But let's be completely honest - Linux on the desktop compared to say OSX, or Windows, or even ChromeOS - doesn't even hold a candle, in terms of cohesive UX design, user experience, general polish etc.

So whilst the OSS community seems great at some things, UX design and the user experience for the non-technical user hasn't been one of them.

[NiKMic]

Thanks for that! As others mentioned, I'm fine with the first point but the other two I'm not too keen on.

[ricw]

The difference is the monopoly that Google has obtained in Europe with more than 80% market share. Similar to how Microsoft was fined for making the internet explorer the default on their platform and thereby dominating the market (windows) a decade ago, Google is likely going to be fined and forced to open their monopolistic platform to fairer competition.

The thinking behind this is that you can't have terms that prohibit competition when you are the monopoly. If you do, you need to accept competition. In a way it's because Google has been too successful in Europe. It'll be interesting to see how the EU thinks a fairer market can be obtained..

[tdkl]

Except you can disable all that on Android and use other services/apps. It's also debatable if Android gained that market share because of this alleged forcing of their apps/services. I bet people chose Android because of price (Apple being a pricey alternative), more free apps/sideloading ability and they actually wanted tighter integration with Google services (fucking surprise).

The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer, but the difference is that MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE, not to mention the pain with setting the default apps (which came with XP SP2).

It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

[millstone]

The issue is not what customers can do, it is what OEMs can do. OEMs cannot disable all that on Android and use other services and apps.

> The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer

Microsoft did a lot of shady stuff. One example is the "per processor" licensing that said, if you ship Windows on one computer, you have to pay Microsoft a royalty for all computers you sell, even the ones that don't run Windows. That's obviously very anti-competitive.

Google seems to be doing something roughly analogous with its requirement that if you ship a Google service, you can't also ship a different, separate product with your own changes. They are trying to use their leverage to prevent competition.

[scholia]

> MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE

Microsoft had already signed a consent decree with Janet Reno's DoJ. This specifically allowed Microsoft to add features to the operating system. In effect, it didn't have a choice about building IE into the OS. (1)

The later anti-trust case was based on the idea of tying (forcing someone who wants one product to have a second product as well). Microsoft said IE was integrated, not tied, while the DoJ said it was tied. (Microsoft eventually won that one 2-1 on appeal.)

> It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

Less of a money grab than the EU fining Microsoft big bucks for bundling Windows Media Player, and forcing it to offer versions of Windows without it. (The EU refused Microsoft's offer to bundle three media players with Windows.)

(1) Microsoft also componentized IE so that different programs -- including third-party programs -- could use components from IE. This wasn't such a bad idea at the time, before the browser became the main focus for malware attacks and we wanted it sandboxed.

[xbmcuser]

   But is it the default the largest seller of android phones is samsung which makes all its own apps as default on its android phones. It even has its own appstore.

[dublinben]

Microsoft already faced an antitrust suit about this issue several years ago. It resulted in the mandatory browser choice ballot when first starting a new Windows system.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

[amelius]

Can't every app be considered a "browser" nowadays? I mean, every app contacts the internet, and displays results based on data from the internet.

I'm not sure if it is fair to draw the line at web browsers that render HTML.

[mintplant]

That seems unnecessarily reductive.

[davidgerard]

This was literally the EU case against Microsoft over IE bundling.

[yincrash]

Even worse is that iOS browsers cannot implement their own rendering system, so they are all locked to Safari's version of WebKit. At least browsers in Android can truly be different than both the in-system chromium based webview and Chrome itself.

[u_me_him]

Neither do I. I would not be surprised at all if some company is behind this.

[ocdtrekkie]

As with most corporate law issues, there are plaintiffs that requested this investigation. Microsoft and several other companies complained.

But the reality is, what Google is doing IS illegal. It's illegal in the US too, but Google bought off the FTC Commissioner and fabricated some academic studies and donates to a large number of our current elected officials re-election campaigns. Aka: Our government won't touch them.