So, about that Google tax on Android makers in the EU – report pegs it at up to $40 per phone Google will charge Android smartphone makers wishing to include its Play Store as much as $40 in Europe, according to documents purportedly seen by The Verge. The fees are a response to the European Commission's request for a remedy after fining Google €4.34bn in July for "[using] Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance …
If ever there was a company that's abused its position..
Why? It's nothing new - so far, they have been following the Microsoft playbook to the letter, including calmly ignoring any applicable laws until they got some frankly pathetic fines in an attempt to stop them. I'm just waiting for them to "generously" offer charity to countries as long as they make Google mandatory for their IT infrastructure. If they found a way to directly milk money out of schools as Microsoft did there could even be a knighthood in it for them once they then "donate" some of it (read: give back a measly percentage of the loot - which they'll probably write off against the minimal taxes they pay)..
The random 10, 20, 40 pricing seems just that... random (and high). This whole problem would be less sticky if there was a GNU/Linux or *BSD mobile equivalent, but there isn't. We could talk dollars and market share, but why isn't the IT industry taking about a serious alternative?
Feel the love of Google, the Microsoft of mobile.
(Posted from 1 of 2 options, my Android phone)
"We could talk dollars and market share, but why isn't the IT industry taking about a serious alternative?"
i wouldve thought it was painfully obvious what with ${current_year} being the 'year of the linux desktop' for about 20 years running.
there will never be a 'serious alternative' that isn't encoumbered with this kind of commercial tie-in. because there's no money to be made in it. once there's no commercial benefit to building the tie-in, there'll be tons of free/unlicenced solutions, most of them supporting a globally recognised standard to enable interoperability.
this isn't going to change because its a problem beyond the means of the IT industry to solve. it requires policy and a change in consumer behaviour.
> ... charity to countries ... to directly milk money out of schools ...
Google's involvement in education with Chrome OS and/or a package of services such as Google docs / gmail etc. would seem just such a thing. While there may be no money from this directly, the rationale of herding children into the system be exploited later is obvious enough.
Surly the reply to all of this is to launch an "open" version of PlayStore. Once a couple of larger manufacturers do this the DEVs will want to launch there too as it's a no cost option for them if done right.
In fact I've already used other sources..... but don't tell Google....
... is that a manufacturer had to do this to their entire product range.
Hopefully, they'll have the chance to apply the free bundle to some of their range, and experiment with other parts of their range. mix and match, and test the waters. If the free part comes with a stipulation that the entire range has to use the google service to qualify... then we're back to square one.
I don't think that that will happen.
The marketing droids and the bean counters will stop any such attempt in its tracks. The safe way is to do Google's bidding and pass the cost onto the customers. After all if everyone is doing it who will the punters turn to?
.. and instead, nail them to the wall with GDPR. That is at present the mechanism with the highest fine for companies like Google - it is no accident that Brussels had to deal with a veritable infestation of US lobbyists over the years, trying to weaken EU privacy laws.
I think Google saw GDPR coming, quickly realised it couldn't stop it and started work on how to work with it by getting people to agree to give it all their data. I think we'll see something similar here.
Where the lobbyists are particularly active (and more succesful) is tax legislation. Tax avoidance is worth $$$ to all these "asset light" companies.
gdpr is only breached if you dont agree to givong the data and they are using the data for means outside what was agreed or acceptable.
make a gmail account and there goes your agreement. use the gmail account to log into google services and thats a lot of scope for legitimate use.
I successfully used Microsoft Windows for several decades without needing an App Store. If I wanted an app (we called them applications back then) I bought it from someone who made applications. Sometimes it even came in a snazzy box. Why do I need to buy my Android apps from Google?
Yes but did you go round installing any old .exe? It gives at least some security, plus users don't want to be having to search high and low for apps. It doesn't work on computers because those with the software don't want to be in a walled garden. Also, could you imagine a world with phones without apps stores? You think you are the family and friends IT person now, wait till something won't install or you have compatibility problems with the phone or they installed something they shouldn't have.
"It gives at least some security"
Not enough, though, which is worse than no security, given that "security" is something Google constantly harps on as a benefit of the app store. The problem with it being so insufficient is that the very users that this would benefit are also the ones who will feel that if they get it from the app store, it is safe -- so they are less likely to be cautious about what they will and will not install.
This post has been deleted by its author
The savvy user never installed something from wharez sites... nor perused them to find "free" software.
Then there are the users who needs the full Photoshop to make changes they could do in Paint, and of course don't want to pay for it.
That savvy user never revisited the vendors site to get security patches either, not that they would have found any had they tried. The only common recourse back then was to buy the next version which might or might not have security patches applied. App stores for all their faults do at least provide a mechanism to allow important security patches to be pushed out to the customers.
I can't quite understand how the charging model can be based on the resolution at which you view a jpg of a cat. A physically bigger unit with more pixels (so you can see the entire pussy) but a smaller dpi (still beyond the resolution of human vision at a foot) costs less ... Marketing is a wonderful thing.
>I can't quite understand how the charging model can be based on the resolution at which you view a jpg of a cat.
You forget Microsoft's various attempts at charging based on screen size:
https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/5574146/microsoft-making-windows-free-on-devices-with-screens-under-nine
There was also the slashing of prices for XP when Linux netbooks came out for devices with smaller screens and farty processors.
Why do you think all those W10 devices came with 32GB SSD and 2GB RAM ?
The licences are cheaper for shittier specced HW.
Personally I think that the biggest problem has been the secret contracts that Google was able to force on companies. This is very similar to the discounts Microsoft offered to PC makers if Windows was installed on every machine: the discount was paid for by effectively eliminating the competition.
I don't expect the ruling to change the world overnight but I do expect improvements, including alternative app stores, over time.
Things that still need looking at by regulators:
"Things that still need looking at by regulators"
The idea of installing an update with a single "Accept" option for a huge 40-screenful licence. And no "I disagree" option without rendering your device useless (hello Apple, I'm looking at you).
The idea of requiring you to accept data slurp in order to use built in functionality of your device. I understand WiFi mobile calling needs GPS to have a location in case you call the emergency services. What I don't understand is why this location is being sent to Google (as the pop up notification says).
There should be "no, I don't agree" options that don't render primary functionality useless.
heyrick,
Doesn't GDPR already cover that? They're asking for your data in order to perform a service that doesn't require it - and the alternative is no service. Which as I understant it breaks GDPR.
You're allowed to do a no data / no service take-it-or-leave-it, but the legislation says that shouldn't be done by consent. But you get the permission for the data to be held on the grounds it's required for the service. Which means you've no consent if the data isn't required. Whereas using the permissions model, you're not allowed to do the take-it-or-leave-it thing, you have to request the data and have refusal as an option.
Or does that fall under the heading of "how this law is supposed to operate" rather than how it's actually been written?
Well it gives manufacturers to do a number of options:
* Fork AOSP and created their own OS, just not calling it Android but essentially the same without Play Services. Then include whatever search, apps etc they want and charge the supplier for them.
* Use Android as is from Google and pay the $10,$20,$40 but get choice over browser or search - potentially getting more from another supplier than $10-$40 for including their browser and Search
* Use Android as is for free but have no chance of getting extra cash from someone else for their search engine on the phone.
So there are a number of choices, however I feel it would be a bit too far to expect Google to produce the OS and all the work that might go in to that and you can then just allow another supplier to supply all the money making bits for no extra work.
It will be interesting where Play Services falls into all this, as if they are not included in the free bundle then there could be significant usability issues for Android without it.
I think the better solution would be a fee for Gapps/Android and then open market for search and browser - preferably even user choice.
Also quoting iComp? Seriously, this is like when you used to quote Florian Mueller on SCO and Oracle lawsuits. Choose an independent analyst or state their conflict on articles!
The option of paying for half or getting the full bundle for free seems to stand on shaky grounds, as it's just a way of circumventing EU's action (and I'm guessing the EU would see it just as it is).
Let's wait and see if Google is just throwing ideas around to see the reactions or if it's the real deal.
My super el cheapo smartphone cost an outrageous 49.99 and I doubt this extra charge will suddenly remove all those 'your device is incompatible' notices the Play Store puts on apps that turn out to run just fine.
What about custom hardware? Would that be cheaper for Play Store access, or will there be some extra high premium charge for anything made from a small aubergine?
> Those 'your device is incompatible' notices are configured by the developer
I had wondered - obviously I'm still completely outraged at this devastating tragedy and will be writing weekly letters to my local paper about it just as soon as I find my green ink.
Anon,
You may be correct. Google may be allowed to get away with taking the piss. Or, the Competition Commissioner may rule that this remedy is also an abuse of market power. In which case we go back to the start, do not pass Go do not collect €200. We shall see.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
