Time to ban Google outside of America?
If ever there was a company that's abused its position..
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.
"...amazing how they always find a way to turn a remedy into a new source of profit..."
Sure they will make a bit of extra cash - the sharpest organisations will always try turn a bad deal into a good one.
As for how much extra: Well that remains to be seen. Android devices generally follow the high volume/low margin model so it's hard to see how much they can squeeze out of vendors already wafer thin margins. Besides, Google will want to consider if their dominance would be compromised by pricing their main method of reach out of the market.
Can't see them wanting to do that somehow.
That's why you make the price high. Then the vendors still have no choice but to bundle all services together, and that bit where the report says Google may offset all or some of the fees if you bundle search and Chrome suggests they hope to go back to secret deals to force OEMs to go all Google on all their product range. Will be interesting to see if the Commission accept this as a legit remedy, or make Google do it again.
So, if I buy a phone without the Google App store installed, does that mean that Google will not make the App store available to me? I don't believe that ... they would be breeding a race of Goole-resistant consumers. More likely there would be a way to download (or purchase) the App store and, if purchased, I would be the cost would be less than $40 ... more like $4 for the app store and a free (crappy) game.
That's right, it won't be available to you from Google - they only distribute apps, and updates, through the app store. Which you don't have. Sideloading a copy grabbed from another device might work, but seeing as the phone you are installing it on won't have been developed with compatibility with the app store (and the essential Play Services) in mind, I'm guessing that your experience will not be a happy one.
If you a re really unlucky the Play Store might even check your phone's model number and block it on the basis that the manufacturer hasn't paid the necessary.
The Google Play Store apk has been available for a long time - grab the latest version onto the phone and run it to install Play Store.
(Google wants as many people as possible to use the Play Store so they make it easy to install on Android phones that do not have it (some of the Chinese builds).)
What I find weird is that all of these apps are available for free, and yet Google thinks that phone makers are willing to pay them $40 to have them pre-installed. Which kind of implies that users will choose a phone that is $40 more expensive rather than just installing those apps themselves. Which takes like 5 minutes, tops.
Another interesting thing is that Google has been apparently sharing ad revenue with the phone manufacturers. I wonder if they do that with Apple, or if they just pay the reported $9B and keep the ad revenue?
This is just exploiting their dominating market position in a different way i.e. placing an extortionist price on a key bit of Android infrastructure (Play Store) Google has managed to monopolize* while pushing their other wares and services on the side, and, moreover, making that so expensive that it is still really a non-option. An indication of how perverted the market** here has become is that Google can even contemplate to ask for an extra fee for including something that is actually their biggest direct source of income from Android: under any sort of normal circumstances *they* would be paying to make sure that sort of thing got as wide distribution as possible.
* in general an app store is a natural monopoly waiting to fall to some monopolist because of the self-amplifying feedback loop of: more users -> more developers -> more apps -> more users ... this time it didn't take much effort on Google's part as they got to ship theirs as the only option with every Android phone and competition never emerged before it was too late
** not really a market, at least not in the sense that a market is supposed to be something where vendors compete for the favor of customers, instead a complex tangle of cross-subsidied products and services where competition has no realistic change of emerging
Who knows. Even if the EU doesn't reject this remedy, Google have potentially opened themselves up to yet another probe, eventually. By charging money, they've defined the business case for a competitor to come in and provide equivalent services (even down to the API level - fair use, right?). That competitor can say, "here's equivalent services, minus the data slurp, for $30", undercutting Google who are saying it's $40 + data slurp. Which would you take, all other things being equal? I agree that, in the round, it isn't going to fly at all well.
Suppose that did happen, and got traction. Google's only recourse is to undercut the competitor's $30. Which could easily be taken as an abuse of monopoly, given Google's current position in the Android services supply market. They could try obfuscating the APIs, but that won't fly either.
they've defined the business case for a competitor to come in and provide equivalent services (even down to the API level - fair use, right?). That competitor can say, "here's equivalent services, minus the data slurp, for $30"
The things that they are charging $40 for include YouTube and Google Maps. You can provide an equivalent API, but good luck providing equivalent data behind the API.
Considering both are free on the web, I'm not sure why you need them built into your phone at all - certainly not why you should pay $40 to get them as an app instead of bookmark.
Well then I guess the phone makers won't have to pay Google $40. Problem solved. What are people complaining about?
"The things that they are charging $40 for include YouTube and Google Maps. You can provide an equivalent API, but good luck providing equivalent data behind the API."
Youtube works quite well on my Firefox Focus, just like I use Youtube via a web browser on my PC.
Google Maps, do they allow offline maps these days? I'm pretty happy with the competition: HERE WeGo has the stupidest name ever but that and say, Maps.me work pretty well.
I certainly have no problems having a Google-free phone.
they don't use the Play store nor do then have to follow Googles rules about how apps must behave. The result is that apps run constantly, everything runs. The Chinese version of Uber (Didi) despite my never having used it would by lunch time have consumed 40% of my phones battery by forcing gps and location tracking to be on permanently. They all behave like this in China. Trust me in this case I want Google being the benevolent overload as the alternative is just awful.
You're essentially right in your description, but remember, the Chinese market is different, for more than one reason.
As an example. Windows Update was never banned there, and yet, there were widely distributed versions of Windows modified with an alternate Update source to be able to patch them without a valid license (the first time I saw one, my mind boggled).
I think the lack of consumer protection there is the biggest issue, and that is a really big difference with the European market. The crap you're describing would get companies in hot water quickly on this side of the GFW.