"But Google tied the use of its popular Play app store, where customers can download more than 1 million apps made by outside developers, to requirements that companies feature other services like Google’s search engine and web browser that drive advertising revenue."
"Android phone makers wishing to distribute Google apps may now also build noncompatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets."
You don't think there's any bad faith in Google saying, "if you want to use our app store, and for all practical purposes you have to use our app store, then you must include our apps for other services -- and by the way if you sell one phone with Gapps, all of your phones must have them too?"
Amazon did it with the Kindle Fire, so it isn't impossible.
Google doesn't make money on the devices themselves. Being able to enforce rules like this is their motivation for developing Android in the first place.
I think part of the problem with the Kindle fire was manufacturers couldn't make a device with Amazon and another with Google due to Google's licensing. That was part of the antitrust suit.
I suspect that's because the phone market is very hard to get into. If I remember correctly, they didn't have any carrier partners, which is how the majority of phones in the US were sold at the time (and probably still are). The success of Fire tablets, such as it is, is enough to show that it's possible to ship a device without Google Play Services and be in the market. Why does it have to be a phone?
Android was created in October 2003 by Andy Rubin, before Google bought it in 2005
> "because they did not want Apple to win all the market"
Actual purpose was: "The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004. The company then decided that the market for cameras was not large enough for its goals, and by five months later it had diverted its efforts and was pitching Android as a handset operating system that would rival Symbian and Microsoft Windows Mobile."
You are right, Google did not intended Android to be a move against Apple from the start, this happened later after iPhone release.
I am also remembering about some emails between Steve Jobs and someone at Google but I can't find them, anyway Google is paying a ton of money to Apple to be set as default search engine, if Apple gets a bigger market share then Google will have to pay even more.
It's hard to commit antitrust violations in your dealings with yourself. What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store?
Google draws scrutiny from antitrust regulators in regard to phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers.
This is very interesting POV. Thinking out loud, if Micrsoft made their own PCs from the beginning and got as big as it did, would they have had the same problems?
> phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers
What if pixel phones become the only way to use Android?
These are just semi-rhetorical (and unlikely scenarios) questions.
That "rule" doesn't apply to anyone. Google is not in trouble for making their own operating system and store and using them on theirown phone. They are getting in trouble for the way they try to get otherphones to include Google's store.
With Apple the OS maker, the store maker, and the phone maker are all the same entity so it doesn't even make sense to say that the OS vendor is trying to force their store on the phone vendor.
If Apple draws antitrust scrutiny, it will be for something different that what is drawing attention to Google, such as for not letting third party stores on their phone.
So if Google drops Android on its own phones for a new OS and discontinues Android development, will it be better off? It seems at this point sustaining Android for other manufacturers is just a headache for them.
> [...] to maintain its dominance of the online search and advertising market.
It's about the dominance in the search engine/advertising market in europe, not about "giving away apps for free". If Apple would have a similar dominant position, they would face the same problems.
The problem is Google forcing the phone makers to bundle Google apps that has nothing to do with Google Play to be able to ship Google Play. There is precedent here with Internet Explorer.
And regulation didn't topple internet explorer - the free market did.
I don't understand why people keep trying to use the Internet Explorer precedent as an example of good antitrust maneuvers. It's literally the exact opposite.
This actually isn't true. The antitrust case is a big part of why Google (and hence, Chrome) exists today: Microsoft was scared that buying and killing Google, or blocking them from being set as the search engine on IE via the Google Toolbar would incite more penalties from the government.
I would have to dig around for the source of the original story, but the suit is the only reason Google was able to topple Microsoft's dominance. The antitrust case gave Google and companies like it room to grow, and an antitrust case against Google may be the only thing can launch the next wave of innovation that surpasses it.
not really, when google started to really take off, internet explorer usage was declining already.
nobody would've changed ie6 as their default browser because of the anti trust ruling. they changed because internet explorer was developed way slower than other competitors that slowly took over the market.
It's Google's operating system. Nobody would buy a Samsung, HTC, or Sony phone without Google's Research and Development.
Smartphone manufacturers are in the smartphone business because of Google. If those manufacturers don't like Google's terms, they're free to go Microsoft's route and build their own OS.
I can make exactly the same point in reverse: "It's the manufacturer's phone. If Google doesn't want to offer its OS on terms that comply with EU competition law, it's free to go the Apple route and simply build all of its own phones. Nobody is forcing Google to do anything."
Google and its smartphone partners are both in the business because of each other. If Google had kept Android closed and limited to its own phones, it would not have become the #1 mobile OS -- we'd be using Palm or Microsoft or Nokia or someone else's product.
Probably in Ireland. It seems to me that (aka: I have no data) the vast majority of Irish use an iPhone.
The carriers have iPhones at roughly the same price as a half-decent Android phone, and those that can't afford to do that, get them second hand (usually older models..).
I have an Android, and I know several techie friends with Androids, but "normal people" have iPhones.
Really - It's almost a surprise to see someone with an Android here..
It seems like that here in New York too, but I believe it s because iPhones are the only instantly recognizable phone. If I look I can tell iPhone or other very easily.
Irish as well and have the opposite experience.
Everyone from teenagers using cheap android phones up to to a lot of people i know using the latest Samsung.
A lot of companies that would have previously used Blackberry but moved to to Iphones are now starting to move to android.
If I measure by market cap it also looks different, but that's an equally irrelevant measurement in this case.
The issue here is where the anti-trust line is drawn. Why people in the tech side never seem to understand this is beyond me, but the line is clear.
It has everything to do with your marketshare. Google could make zero dollars off Android, if they still own & control it and it reaches a vast majority marketshare, as it has in Europe, then they are pressured to open it up and increase competition within the platform.
Whining about Apple and whataboutism is ridiculous. They are not the majority of devices in any major region (NA/Europe/Asia/Worldwide). Some isolated countries are majority iOS, but they all exist within the EU and the EU is 75% Android.
"Whataboutism" is a nice, albeit lazy, refrain in some discussions. But the EU uses common law. Common law is based on legal precedent, in other words, "whataboutism".
However, I don't think that Apple has the market share in the EU to be compared to Google in this case.
Actually, their overall market share wasn't particularly considered. They were fined for abusing their dominance in the market for app stores that are available on Android, and their dominance in the market for licensable smart mobile operating systems. Both of these categorically exclude Apple as competition.
Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store.
Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to do anything and you need to use their app store but they're totally fine here.
Good job Europe.