from the One-corp-to-rule-them-all,-one-corp-to-find-them... dept.
Google confirms it will appeal $5 billion EU antitrust fine
Google has confirmed the expected, that it will indeed appeal the record $5 billion fine that it was handed today by European antitrust regulators for abusing the dominance of its Android operating system.
The European Commission announced that it is fining the U.S. firm for "three types of restrictions that [it] has imposed on Android device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic on Android devices goes to the Google search engine." [...] In particular, the EC has decided that Google:
- Has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
- Made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices
- And has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
The decision also concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search service, licensable smart mobile operating systems, and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
In a more detailed blog post, Google doubled down on its position to argue that Android has helped bring choice to the market by enabling 1,300 different companies to develop 24,000 smartphones, and bringing over one million apps to users.
Previously: Report: Feds Investigating if Google's Android Violates Antitrust Rules
EU vs. Google: Android Antitrust
EU's Leaked Plan to Punish Google for Antitrust Violations
Google's Next EU Fine Could be Even Bigger for Android Violations
Related Stories
According to Bloomberg, "FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because the matter is confidential."
Neither the FTC nor Google immediately responded to Ars' request for comment, and both entities declined to speak with Bloomberg, which noted on Friday that the inquiry was "in its early stages and it could end without a case against the company."
Europe's anti-trust investigation may widen to include other Google services.
Earlier this year, the European Commission announced that it had opened an antitrust investigation into Google's Android offerings: "[It] will focus on whether Google has entered into anti-competitive agreements or abused a possible dominant position in the field of operating systems, applications, and services for smart mobile devices."
According to IDC, an industry analysis firm, Android currently retains 59 percent of the American smartphone operating system market, with iOS at 38 percent and Windows Mobile at 2.35 percent. Worldwide, Android has over 82 percent of the market.
Android Antitrust
From ExtremeTech and the European Commission The EU is complaining that:
manufacturers that opt to license Android and get the Google apps cannot then also build their own version of Android for devices — known as an Android fork.
Google is countering with:
allowing forks could cause people to buy incompatible Android devices without realizing it. If you had a Samsung Android phone before and you buy another one, you'd expect it to work with all your apps and services. If Samsung were allowed to sell both standard Android and Android fork devices, you could end up with a phone that doesn't work the way you thought it would. Google certification ensures that Android devices sold to consumers work correctly.
What does the Soylent community think? Is Google in a precarious position here? Android fragmentation is a massive issue, one that manufacturers seem unwilling to address; if Google is found to be in breach of the rules here will this lead to more fragmentation or the status quo?
[Continues...]
Reuters has obtained a document that shows how the European Union intends to punish Alphabet/Google for antitrust violations:
EU antitrust regulators plan to order Alphabet's Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search exclusively on their devices and warned the company of a large fine, an EU document showed. The document, running to more than 150 pages, was sent to complainants last week for feedback. Google received a copy in April in which the European Commission accused it of using its dominant Android mobile operating system to shut out rivals.
The EU competition enforcer in its charge sheet, known as a statement of objections, said it planned to tell the U.S. technology giant to halt payments or discounts to mobile phone manufacturers in return for pre-installing Google's Play Store with Google Search.
The regulators also want to prevent Google from forcing smartphone makers to pre-install its proprietary apps if this restricts their ability to use competing operating systems based on Android. Google "cannot punish or threaten" companies for not complying with its conditions, according to the document seen by Reuters.
The Commission's investigation followed a complaint by FairSearch, a lobby group supported by companies that want to ensure they are not disadvantaged by search engine market dominance, in March 2013. Google could face a large fine because the anti-competitive practices, which started from January 2011, are still ongoing, the document said.
Here is the FairSearch website.
Google was hit with a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine last month by the European Commission for breaking antitrust laws. The EU says Google demoted rivals and unfairly promoted its own services in search results related to shopping. While the fine is the largest antitrust judgement ever, an even bigger fine could be on the way for Google.
Reuters reports that EU regulators are considering another record-breaking fine for Google over its Android operating system. The European Commission has been investigating Android after rivals complained that Google has been abusing its market dominance. Google has been accused of limiting access to the Google Play Store unless phone makers also bundle Google search and Chrome apps. Google has also reportedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android, as part of an anti-fragmentation agreement.
While Reuters suggests the potential Android fine could top the $2.7 billion penalty, a bigger concern for Google will be whether it's forced to dramatically alter Android and unbundle key parts. Android has long been considered as open source software, but Google has slowly been adding key components into its Google Play Services software and associated agreements.
Source: The Verge
Google reportedly offered Android changes to EU in 2017
The European Union may have characterized its $5 billion Android antitrust fine as punishment for an intransigent Google, but the practical reality might be different. Bloomberg sources have claimed that Google offered to make changes to its Android policies in August 2017, not long after it received an EU antitrust penalty for its product search practices. Although Google didn't dive into specifics, it had offered to "loosen restrictions" in Android contracts and had considered distributing its apps in "two different ways."
The EU wasn't having it, according to the sources. Officials reportedly said only that a settlement was "no longer an option," and that Google's offer was "too little too late."
Also at Business Insider and BGR.
Previously: EU Fines Google $5 Billion for Android Antitrust Violations
The EU fines Google $1.69 billion for bundling search and advertising
Google and the EU's European Commission are making all sorts of announcements lately. Fresh off the revelation that Google would implement a browser and search-engine picker in EU-sold Android devices, Google's advertising division is getting slapped with a fine next, to the tune of €1.5 billion ($1.69 billion). The European Commission's latest antitrust ruling says that Google's bundling of its advertising platform with its custom search engine program is anti-competitive toward other ad providers.
The particular wing of Google's advertising empire the Commission is concerned with here is "AdSense for Search." Adsense for Search does not refer to the famous ads above Google.com search results but, instead, are ads displayed in "Custom Search" results that can be embedded inside their websites.
Related: EU Fines Google $5 Billion for Android Antitrust Violations
Google Case Set to Examine if EU Data Rules Extend Globally
(Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Wednesday July 18 2018, @05:13PM
... you follow its rules.
Or the lady crushes you.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday July 18 2018, @05:18PM (4 children)
The more I've watched these things unfold the more I think slapping the wrist and trimming the boundaries will never solve the problem. So even though it's tempting to take heart when something like this happens, this ultimately is far too little to help. It's necessary to strike the root. And the root of this monopoly, just like Microsoft's monopoly, is the misapplication of copyright to software. Until that gets straightened out I'm afraid we're just shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
What would you propose instead?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday July 18 2018, @11:46PM
So for example, copyright applies to source-code. If you want copyright you publish source. If you don't want to publish source, you should use trade secret protection instead.
EULAs should be laughed out of court. A license is a grant of permission to use source code. If you're only getting binaries you don't need any license, anymore than you need a license to read the book you bought.
These are examples where the straightforward application of well-established rules that worked well was avoided, because too few of us understood the tech and too many judges did not, and unscrupulous lawyers have made billions off it. So just because it was 'on a computer' suddenly everything is different and all you have to do is sweet talk the judge to see it your way and suddenly YOU OWN MATH.
Software patents are a whole different thicket, but they'd both have to come down to give healthy growth a chance again.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday July 18 2018, @11:24PM
From TFA:
That's BIG bikkies (gross turnover, not profit).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:13AM
This is so like Microsoft's old tactics, I'd be surprised if Sergey, Larry and Bill weren't golfing buddies (they leave Steve Ballmer behind - he tends to throw the clubs too much).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday July 18 2018, @05:46PM (3 children)
Historically how well has "Sure, we're accused of product tying in one market but we're supporters of competition in a totally different marketplace" worked for giant monopoly conglomerates? I mean aside from the usual stuff like bigger companies have bigger bribes and the EU/EC being pretty far divorced from reality and/or representing the interests of EU citizens (rudderless groups that don't represent anyone tend to go insane at a group level, and predicting the behavior of insane groups is always tricky, can't use rational thought to predict or model the actions of irrational people)?
Maybe a terrible SN automobile analogy would be a car mfgr gets accused of an OSHA violation and their press release defense appears to be they have a really popular and well thought of diversity committee. Yeah good luck with that in court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:05AM
Looks like going insane does not require group level, you are doing pretty well on your own.
Or, do you actually have a support group to pump back up your level of insanity every time you start showing signs of normality?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by arslan on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:57AM
Insanity or not, I fail to see how this decision from the EU is anything but a good decision. You can argue like Arik that its a bit too little too late, but its better than doing nothing like in other places.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:19AM
"Yeah, our Uber cars are killing people, but look at the morticians and funeral homes and hearse drivers we're sending work to!"
2 cars in one car analogy!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 18 2018, @06:40PM (12 children)
I have an Android smartphone and a couple of tablets, but I have steadfastly refused to use the Play Store. The older tablet got the nuclear treatment. I paved it over with Cyanogenmod.
I tried to use the store, but it insisted on credit card info before I could install even free stuff. They _promise_ your card will not be charged for free stuff. And maybe they're not lying about that. Their object is of course to smooth the path towards charging you for another few apps later. Once you're all set up with CC info, then it's easy to nag at you for just 99 cents here, and a dollar there.
I tried to fake it with a generated credit card number, but they put extra checks in there to stop that. I also tried to get points with this Google opinions survey stuff, but was roadblocked there too. Okay, fine. F them. Won't use the Play Store, how do they like them apples? Everything I've put on has been done via sideloading. Walled gardens suck.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:01PM
I am the same. Every app has been sideloaded, devices that can get a reflash.
I have been perfectly content with it. And there is a healthy business in sideloading playstore apps, as can be seen by sites archiving old versions of apks.
I stopped gaming on PC over the same issues, online activation and then digital stores for PC games. I've only been playing old titles or open source/freely distributed games since (FYI the entire Earthsiege series including Tribes is freely available on the new owner's website, albeit for ~4 different platforms due to how many OSes the games were developed over. DOS, Win3.1, Win9x, XP.) I have been considering splurging on GOG for a few titles I would like to get, but I don't like having my interests in games tied to a permanent online record attached to my identity. We used to pay cash for a reason. Apparently people have lost their shit and forgotten what some of those reasons are, like that trip to the sex shop, or the anti-establishment bookstore on the 'bad' side of town. If the old or new generations do come to realizations on why those were, it will already be too late for them.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:24PM (3 children)
What company is your phone from? I've had two different Android phones and I've never given them a CC number, but I have no problem installing free apps.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:29PM (2 children)
Huh. No, after checking my settings apparently I did enter it at some point. Really don't remember doing that. Odd.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:12PM
Maybe they just autofilled it from your shadow profile on googlensabookspace.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:12AM
Jokes on them as my cc expired ages ago.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:54PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:41PM (3 children)
As others have mentioned, you don't need a credit card for the Play store. On the page which loads when Play Store launches, there is some tiny text which says "skip." You can do that. Admittedly they make it relatively hard to see unless you are actively looking for it, but it is there.
If the program you want to get is demanding a credit card, though... well, that's on the program, not on Google.
For what it's worth, you can also spend cash for Play-store gift cards, and use that to buy things rather than spending tons of time for pennies of credits doing those surveys. I've done that for the couple of programs I've bought.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:58AM (2 children)
I don't know about credit cards, or cash, or anything of the nature. I visit google lay, search for "free games", find one that sorta kinda looks interesting and click "install". I get "Please sign in. In order to continue, you must sign in." The three options in this box are a little "X" at the top right corner, a green button to sign in, and a grayed out button to cancel.
Note, this isn't Android - I'm using a Chrome based browser on Linux. This particular browser has no account information of any kind, for any site. It's one of my anonymity tools - it has no history, no referrers, refuses all cookies unless specifically ordered to accept, no advertising - nothing. It's not as good as TOR, of course, but I find it useful.
So, my options are to allow Google to track this browser, or to not use any Google apps with the browser. I think that is the kind of thing the EU is upset about.
OK - thinking for a second, I'm connecting directly from the US. Let me close the browser, and switch over to a EU server . . . Luxembourg looks good . . . and I get exactly the same little popup box. Maybe I've done this wrong - I copy pasted the address from my previous session into this current session. It's possible that had a done a clean search for the google app store, I may have landed on a different page, possibly on a different server, and thus had a different menu?
Whatever - Google doesn't really want to give you anything "free" without any strings attached.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday July 19 2018, @06:14AM (1 child)
We need to train ourselves to other thought paradigms.
Just because someone else is "offering" something, that is no reason I should want any of it.
Even if its free.
Can't tell you just how much "free" stuff came on my computer, and I actually invested a substantial amount of time to rid myself of it, without ever even launching it - not even once. ( Well, I knew that if I launched it, it might wedge itself into the system even more, maybe making it impossible for me to remove completely. )
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:08PM
Agreed. Twofer sales for starters. I only want one, but the guy offers a twofer. I take the second, because it's "free" - then it sits around the house until I've forgotten what the hell it was.
"Sale" in general. How many people buy stuff that is "on sale", but they never would have thought of buying it when it wasn't brought to their attention by a sale.
Software? I never wanted to play those games on Google Play. Had no real intention of even installing any games. I just wanted to see whether I could download one without identifying myself to Google.
But - a couple zillion human beings browse those stores, searching for stuff. WTF do they think they'll find? Another mindless game, that needs permissions? Permissions for WHAT?
And, all of that leads us back to TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. SOMEONE is paying for every bite of lunch that you eat. In the case of software, you're ultimately paying, but for the most part, the collective "you" has no idea what the price is.
At least with open source, which is mostly free, you can look at it, and determine pretty quickly what the "real" price is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:50PM
I don’t think this is true, or at least if it is, it's a relatively recent development. I have used several open line Nexus devices (thus making them the pure, unadulterated Google experience) and none of them ever asked for credit cards initially, and I had no problems installing free apps that way. Admittedly though, the last time I’d done this was in 2013-2014 or thereabouts, and things might have changed since then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:40AM
Get Yalp Store from F-Droid. Front end to Google Play but without the need for an account. They use their (Devs) own account. Godsend.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @06:55PM (4 children)
Remove the EU from the Android market. What's left? Overpriced iShit phones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:37PM (2 children)
Remotely brick a device for an entire country or region and tell customers to take it up with gubment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:18AM
Do that and the courier services stock doubles in price on short notice.
The Chinese will pave their 'one belt one route' with cheap good enough smart phones running AliOS [wikipedia.org]. Alibaba is strong enough to even provide means to unbrick those phones too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:23AM
That's an awfully large set of digital services you have there, USA. Would be a shame if it they were all suddenly subject to severe tariffs in the EU.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:05PM
The Google monopoly is 101% artificial. Attempt to bite the hand that feeds them, get themselves booted out of the market quicker than one can say "imaginary property".
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday July 23 2018, @05:18AM
I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the U.S., but not for long!