SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Report: Google argues the Huawei ban would hurt its Android monopoly
The Trump administration would probably describe its Huawei export ban as a move that improves national security by keeping China's pet telecom company out of the US market. According to a report from The Financial Times, Google's recent discussions with the US government actually argue that the Huawei ban is bad for national security. Google is reportedly asking for an exemption from the export ban.
The argument, reportedly, is that Huawei is currently dependent on Google for its Android smartphone software, and that dependence is a good thing for the US. The Financial Times quotes "one person with knowledge of the conversations" as saying, "Google has been arguing that by stopping it from dealing with Huawei, the US risks creating two kinds of Android operating system: the genuine version and a hybrid one. The hybrid one is likely to have more bugs in it than the Google one, and so could put Huawei phones more at risk of being hacked, not least by China."
[...] Google's control over the Android ecosystem—even when devices don't use the Google apps—means there is still some level of security and updateability going into these devices. Google's first argument in that Financial Times report is that more secure devices are better for national security.
The second argument in the above quote is that a ban would "create two kinds of Android" and hurt Google's monopoly over Android. If you're a smartphone manufacturer looking for a smartphone OS, Android is the only game in town. The latest worldwide OS market share numbers from the IDC show an 86.6/13.3 percent share between Android and iOS, respectively, with "Other" clocking in at 0.0 percent market share. Taken as a whole, the US has a smartphone OS monopoly.
More secure devices (used by foreign targets for NSA hacking) are better for national security? Nice try, Google.
Previously: Huawei Working on its Own OS to Prepare for "Worst-Case Scenario" of Being Deprived of Android
Huawei Hysteria is a False Alarm, Culture Secretary Tells MPs
Google Pulls Huawei's Android License
The Huawei Disaster Reveals Google's Iron Grip On Android
Huawei Calls on U.S. to Adjust its Approach to Tackle Cybersecurity Effectively
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 08 2019, @01:45AM (2 children)
So, Google is facing investigation for monopolistic conduct. And, here, Google is appealing to government to preserve it's monopolistic position in smartphone software. Both the US and the EU need to use Google's own appeal against it. Time to break Google up, just like they broke up AT&T decades ago. It's also time to break up several banks, several telcos, and more. When any corporation controls more than 10% of it's market, it's time to scrutinize their business.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 08 2019, @02:12AM
Time to break Google up, just like they broke up AT&T decades ago.
AT&T, don't they own the internet now?
As for Google, just put their Android patents and copyrights under compulsory licensing.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday June 09 2019, @08:49PM
The article says Google is trying preserve "Google's monopoly over Android". Which is fine, actually, because Google owns Android as a brand. The source code, AOSP, is FOSS, and anyone can fork it and start their own thing. They can't call it Android though, because Google owns that brand.
Being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly position to shut out competitors is. In the context of Android, the big gray area isn't Android itself, but Google's suite of apps and the Play Store. One would have to argue that Google is abusing its Play Store and Android validation requirements to shut out competitors (AOSP forks), which to me isn't a clear case.
Ignoring the inevitably biased reporting on the discussions, I suspect that the actual contents of the discussions is phrased like: banning Trademarked Android in China will make it likely for an untrademarked Android (AOSP fork) to become popular in China, and that's a huge risk for the US (and the rest of the world) because of the nature of Communist Party of China's brand of politics (Tiananmen anyone?). A Chinese "Android" will definitely be backdoored by the CPC. So Trademarked Android would be portrayed as a "monopoly" of convenience (it's easier to use good thing that exists) rather than a monopoly that maintains its position through abuse. I'm sure Google's lawyers aren't that stupid.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday June 08 2019, @02:27AM (2 children)
Maybe they just didn't want "Android" to be associated with "insecure, backdoored phone operating system" in the general press? Their core competency is in software, not brand management.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 08 2019, @03:38AM
China already has its own versions of things, with little relevance to the West, so I doubt that GOOG would get smeared that way. Huawei devices are effectively banned in the U.S. now anyway.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 08 2019, @04:01AM
Their core competency is in brand management. Anything else is secondary to profit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Saturday June 08 2019, @02:39AM (1 child)
China will do anything and everything to remove dependence on American made components.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday June 08 2019, @03:58AM
Can you blame 'em?
A lot of us are doing what we can to eliminate any dependencies that render us vulnerable to the extortion of monopoly.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Saturday June 08 2019, @03:07AM
The biggest threat to Android is the way Google makes it less usable with every update.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday June 08 2019, @03:50AM
OK, now we officially have the "one bit of competition". And many would agree that they've been a "two bit company" for a while, so what will we have for four bits? [catb.org]
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 09 2019, @01:24AM
"fuck national security, we have profits to make." Not that anyone with three sparkin' neurons should need *this* in particular as a wakeup lesson, but this is one of the best examples I've seen yet of how large multinationals have zero loyalty to the US itself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...