EU committee to probe Google over alleged anticompetitive behavior with Android

[Ry]

Checked the main blog and didn't see a post on this so -

EU committee to probe Google over alleged anticompetitive behavior with Android via The Verge

The group will also look at whether or not Google has used its influence to force manufacturers to pre-install its own apps such as YouTube on their devices and then give them prominent places by default on the homescreen. Though Android is offered for free to manufacturers as an open source operating system, Google's competitors allege that the company has used it to push services such as YouTube, which bring in a large amount of ad revenue to Google.

 

[Nemephosis]

......... it's Google's OS. They can put what they want on it just like Apple does. The EU committee is getting very pedantic over what they investigate Google over.

 

[Ry]

......... it's Google's OS. They can put what they want on it just like Apple does. The EU committee is getting very pedantic over what they investigate Google over.

So tell that to Microsoft and their browser battle in the EU.

 

[Nemephosis]

That is equally ridiculous. They make Windows, they can put IE on all their copies if they want. If they actively blocked you from installing any other browsers, then yeah, there'd be a big reason to get up in arms, but they don't.

 

[Aquila]

Okay, so Apple doesn't license it's OS at all; Google does, for free. That's 90% of the mobile market. As far as I know RIM isn't licensing BlackBerry to third party OEM's currently, so that only leaves Windows. You're telling me that Microsoft cannot be a profitable company with their 2% marketshare without charging Nokia, HTC, etc. for the privilege of using their software? Sorry, no MS; you're the only one charging others to use your stuff, that's your call not theirs.

 

[JHBThree]

......... it's Google's OS. They can put what they want on it just like Apple does. The EU committee is getting very pedantic over what they investigate Google over.

They're not arguing that Google can't put what they want in it. They're arguing that Google is using the free nature of the OS to manipulate the market both in mobile and with their services.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

There is a rather serious (in nature, not sure about validity) allegation that they also asked OEM's to delay or cancel projects for other operating systems or to prioritize Android projects. Depending on the nature of the request(s), if true, it's not illegal to ask for your projects to be completed as soon as possible, but it is illegal to strong arm a company into hurting your competitors.

 

[JHBThree]

There is a rather serious (in nature, not sure about validity) allegation that they also asked OEM's to delay or cancel projects for other operating systems or to prioritize Android projects. Depending on the nature of the request(s), if true, it's not illegal to ask for your projects to be completed as soon as possible, but it is illegal to strong arm a company into hurting your competitors.

Which is possible. I personally don't think Google would stoop to that, but they have done similar things in the past. (The Skyhook debacle comes to mind)

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

Which is possible. I personally don't think Google would stoop to that, but they have done similar things in the past. (The Skyhook debacle comes to mind)

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

The real issue can be one of interpretation. It'd be easy for someone like HTC to look at an Android opportunity where Google says, "deadline is xx" and they already have a commitment for Windows at the same time and reach the determination that it's more potentially profitable for them to work on the Android project, MS gets shafted and blames Google, even if Google never knew or cared about the Windows project. Over simplification, but I also have a hard time seeing Larry bullying around OEM's.

 

[JHBThree]

The real issue can be one of interpretation. It'd be easy for someone like HTC to look at an Android opportunity where Google says, "deadline is xx" and they already have a commitment for Windows at the same time and reach the determination that it's more potentially profitable for them to work on the Android project, MS gets shafted and blames Google, even if Google never knew or cared about the Windows project. Over simplification, but I also have a hard time seeing Larry bullying around OEM's.

Larry, yes. Andy Rubin would totally do that. He's got an ego as big as Steve Jobs' was, and a lot of the same personality defects too.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ry]

I also find it curious that YouTube is the example in the Verge article. Microsoft wants YouTube for Windows Phone.

 

[JHBThree]

I also find it curious that YouTube is the example in the Verge article. Microsoft wants YouTube for Windows Phone.

Matter of perspective. Their view is undoubtedly that Google is holding YouTube hostage from windows phone, since several windows phone manufacturers make android phones. Were it not for Microsoft writing their own YouTube app that blocked ads, and basically forcing Google into a corner (by causing Google to make a scene, then turning it back onto them with a 'if you guys would make an app with proper access, ads would be included' response), it is not hard to imagine that YouTube still wouldn't be on the platform.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

Matter of perspective. Their view is undoubtedly that Google is holding YouTube hostage from windows phone, since several windows phone manufacturers make android phones. Were it not for Microsoft writing their own YouTube app that blocked ads, and basically forcing Google into a corner (by causing Google to make a scene, then turning it back onto them with a 'if you guys would make and app with proper access ads would be included'), it is not hard to imagine that YouTube still wouldn't be on the platform.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

On this one I agree you're right about how Windows thinks about it, but the fact still remains that YouTube is a website that any modern browser can access. While I'm sure there are more reasons to it, the market share argument alone precludes Google from obligation to provide, without direct compensation, redundant (albeit better) apps for services (YouTube, Maps) they already provide to the majority of the internet at no direct cost. They already did the legwork to make it accessible and provide clear requirements and tools to other platforms that want to develop their own TOS compliant apps. If Microsoft and/or users think the experience sucks, that's incentive for Microsoft to update their own services, not to bully another company into doing it for them. If I were Larry Page, I'd have Googlers build the app and charge around $3,000 per man hour to do it.

 

[JHBThree]

On this one I agree you're right about how Windows thinks about it, but the fact still remains that YouTube is a website that any modern browser can access. While I'm sure there are more reasons to it, the market share argument alone precludes Google from obligation to provide, without direct compensation, redundant (albeit better) apps for services (YouTube, Maps) they already provide to the majority of the internet at no direct cost. They already did the legwork to make it accessible and provide clear requirements and tools to other platforms that want to develop their own TOS compliant apps. If Microsoft and/or users think the experience sucks, that's incentive for Microsoft to update their own services, not to bully another company into doing it for them. If I were Larry Page, I'd have Googlers build the app and charge around $3,000 per man hour to do it.

From what I understand, Google has been blocking full access to YouTube through the browser. The original YouTube 'app' was just a link to the mobile website, and was missing features because Google was blocking them. (And let's be clear, it wasn't because of differences in browsers, it was because it was being actively blocked)

Microsoft has also attempted to build a YouTube app themselves on prior occasions, but Google would not allow access to the APIs that allow individuals to log in to their accounts, favorite videos, see ads, etc. Basically, Google would only let Microsoft build an inferior and broken app. Also, just to be clear, Microsoft has not asked Google to build an app for them. All Microsoft has asked is for access to the APIs that would allow them to build an app that offers windows phone users the same experience they can get on other platforms.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

Also, just to be clear, Microsoft has not asked Google to build an app for them. All Microsoft has asked is for access to the APIs that would allow them to build an app that offers windows phone users the same experience they can get on other platforms.

I had heard that, but the latest press releases indicated they'd be "working together", that could easily mean sharing APIs, or hand holding, or whatever. The rest of it is very consistent with what I read on WP Central forums, but it doesn't match up well with what Google had previously indicated, so hard to tell which one to believe or if it's something entirely different.

I'm definitely in favor of everyone having access, so against blocking of features or whatever that are typically available through the browser, but how do we know they were specifically targeting mobile IE browser users to block content, and that it wasn't because of incompatibility like Google had claimed? (Actually, I never saw Google's official response, only tech blogs talking about it... so that could be an issue).

If they were actively singling those users out, that definitely smacks of anti-competitive behavior, but I'm not sure it is in a legal sense or just an attitude. That'd require more research, which I'm sure MS and Goog both are investing in.

 

[JHBThree]

I had heard that, but the latest press releases indicated they'd be "working together", that could easily mean sharing APIs, or hand holding, or whatever. The rest of it is very consistent with what I read on WP Central forums, but it doesn't match up well with what Google had previously indicated, so hard to tell which one to believe or if it's something entirely different.

I'm definitely in favor of everyone having access, so against blocking of features or whatever that are typically available through the browser, but how do we know they were specifically targeting mobile IE browser users to block content, and that it wasn't because of incompatibility like Google had claimed? (Actually, I never saw Google's official response, only tech blogs talking about it... so that could be an issue).

If they were actively singling those users out, that definitely smacks of anti-competitive behavior, but I'm not sure it is in a legal sense or just an attitude. That'd require more research, which I'm sure MS and Goog both are investing in.

Supposedly, Google claimed compatibility issues. But those claims fell flat when it was brought up that mobile and desktop IE both use the same engine. So the only way for the mobile version to not have those features was active blocking of them.

With the current app, Google complained about the download feature and the lack of ads (the download complaint was legitimate). But the reason it didn't have ads was because Google wouldn't give Microsoft the right APIs for them to be included, which MS was more than happy to publicize.

As far as I'm aware Google will just be giving Microsoft access to the APIs, and in exchange Microsoft will remove the download feature. That's all Microsoft wanted anyways, and they played Google pretty well for a company that's usually hamfisted.

Of course, Google could just capitulate and build a suite of Google apps, which I'm sure would be the most profitable thing for them. I think, though, that Google is actually worried about windows phone becoming a success, since Microsoft has deep pockets and has already shown it isn't afraid to invest heavily. (The fact that Windows phone is the only major os with multiple manufacturer support, and therefore could produce an army of different windows phones, surely has to be in googles mind when making these decisions)

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Also, I suppose this discussion is dragging the topic a bit too off topic. Regardless, I'm sure Google will air their reasons for decisions like this, and let the EU decide whether they violated any competition laws.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

I dislike terming Windows Phone 8 as a major OS because of it's market share, although I do agree we could think of MS as a sleeping giant in a way and they are growing quickly but can leave that for another day or their forums. But any expectation of Android and Chrome to become more similar should be taken in the same train of thought as Windows and Windows Phone becoming more similar and Google has much more competition in that exchange than Microsoft does. The Surface may be a flop, but it can technically still be used as a fully functional desktop replacement, whereas Android has more compromises when attempting to force it into the same functionality. As each company moves towards unification, in my opinion, MS becomes more of a threat as a software player to Android. That though, doesn't make them a threat to Google as long as Google's services are still among the most used on Windows, OSX and other platforms.

 

[JHBThree]

I dislike terming Windows Phone 8 as a major OS because of it's market share, although I do agree we could think of MS as a sleeping giant in a way and they are growing quickly but can leave that for another day or their forums. But any expectation of Android and Chrome to become more similar should be taken in the same train of thought as Windows and Windows Phone becoming more similar and Google has much more competition in that exchange than Microsoft does. The Surface may be a flop, but it can technically still be used as a fully functional desktop replacement, whereas Android has more compromises when attempting to force it into the same functionality. As each company moves towards unification, in my opinion, MS becomes more of a threat as a software player to Android. That though, doesn't make them a threat to Google as long as Google's services are still among the most used on Windows, OSX and other platforms.

Pretty sure windows phone is #3 in market share after android and iOS. That's a major os.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

Pretty sure windows phone is #3 in market share after android and iOS. That's a major os.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

They are, but the last numbers I saw were 74%:18%:2% or something like that. Although that same report indicated Windows had the fastest growing share, a 200% increase from the previous report, whereas Android had declined by approximately 1% and iOS had increased by approximately 1%. To me this puts Windows in the future closer to iOS, but currently they're closer to BlackBerry, FireFox and 0% than to the leaders.