Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mobile OSs Google faces EU charge over Android 'abuse of dominance'
- Thread starter lowendlinux
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1. Not all apps available in Play Store are available elsewhere (up to date, official, safe)
2. If Amazon wants to produce both Android and Fire OS devices, they will probably have to stop upgrading Android on Fire OS (see BlackBerry and Samsung).
To be fair, I was attempting to interpret your poorly worded grammar. But it is just simpler to mute your comments and not deal with you anymore.
so that means the unprecendented amount of control and lockdown that exists in no other mainstream consumer OS is okay? What about back when it was the majority? was it okay then?
But your issues with Apples control over its OS are an entirely different thing than what the EU are pursuing Google for.
I think his issues fall more into line with Microsoft/I.E. Than this case, to be honest. I was simply trying to point out that people with majority shares have to play by different rules.
iOS had a majority share for only a short time when they were basically the only modern game in town. As soon as com0anies started to make Android devices, iOS started slipping rather quickly.
I know it isnt exactly the same, Apple is worse. Android devices with unlockable bootloaders (most european variants) can be modified in any and every way, including stripping google from the device. Apple devices cannot even do far lesser things like downgrading the OS.
If you have 99% of the profits with 20% share that doesn't make you a threat to free choice yet.
And BTW, Google makes ton of profits with collaterals. If the hardware makers die, they can just build the phones themselves.
And why do the other makers earn so little?
1. Android vendors: little differentiation by being lazy and dropping their own systems in favor of Android, undercut by low-cost newcomers with little R&D capability
2. Alternatives: Locked out by Google even if quite compatible
[doublepost=1461349563][/doublepost]
Apple is not worse. It is normal that I cannot use an iOS app on BB10, but not a pure Android app which is only available on the Play Store.
If Apple had 90% of the market, then we could talk about making their runtime available to third parties.
It is also not normal for one app store to control any and all applications on an operating system like ios too
That is true. It does not affect other phone manufactures, but it imposes a tax on ISVs and limits the owner's freedom.
I guess that is why I did not like iOS in the beginning, but now it is more a question of dumbed-down GUI, price, and lack of removable parts.
I'm not trying to downplay Googles actions. I just wish the spirit of the standards were applied evenly. Would be a win for users all around.
In theory if Google went completely in house and manufactured their own hardware we could be stuck with two completely apple-locked style systems and it sounds like we could do jack squat.
Imo users deserve certain rights.
Yes, but the investigation is massive. It goes well beyond a single item like the Appstore or Windows. There was nothing like Google before.
there was also nothing like the lockdown on ios devices before iOS either though! there still is no equivalent wrt lockdown on iOS to this day
gaming consoles are the best example I have as something close
I'm not saying Apple deserves a pass.
Google is being investigated for:
- Search
- Android
- Appstores
- Deals with telecom
- Price comparison
- Google News
- Advertising
- Blacklisting
etc.
This is the second charge, and they are not finished yet.
If Android goes down and we only have iOS? You'll see lawsuits. Until then, not happening.
Heard the ideal suggestion made on This Week in Google podcasts when they were discussing this topic...legislate to eliminate the default lockdown, meaning OS can't mandate/lock down or designate default apps. It would then be up to the user to determine.
The EU is talking about €26 billion (with a B) in fines against Google. Complete and utter b.s. That would essentially bankrupt Google through stock devaluation. If that is how the EU goes about things, I could see Google simply limit the OS to specific regions or shut down all servers in the EU. I'd like to see how long a politicians career lasts when the public finds out that they can no longer use their phone or internet services because of them. Google has 40% of the entire Internet go through their servers, so it wouldn't be an idle threat.
What I find kind of funny is how Google haters love to talk about how fragmented the Android experience is. Google is trying to rectify that by at least keeping Android standardized in its apps that are available to users across various Android devices. Now those same people are criticizing Google for not allowing OEM's to fragment the platform even more. Well, which is it?
My reply was more in the context of creating uniform requirements across all OS, ie Android, iOS, whatever--specifically in relation to gotluck's issues with Apple being able to make certain requirements of their devices while Google is getting hammered for doing the same. I'm not hating on Google here...in fact, I don't understand how this complaint can't be levied on Google when nobody's forcing OEMs to use Android...go create your own fork like Amazon or Cyanogenmod where you're not required to include Google Apps.
I don't begin to understand the dynamics of this whole investigation, other than EU politicians seem to have specific agenda against Google.
My reply wasn't directed at you specifically wrt people hating on Google and trying to bring it down. Apologies if I came across that way.
I don't think you'll see anything close to that 26 billion number. And this seems like it'll drag for years.
I can see the irony of the fragmentation argument though, even though at least in the us carriers play a part in it. Add the fact that android devices are on every pricepoint market it further adds to the argument of fragmentation.
The reason Google is being singled out is because they are forcing oems to include google services.
To use an analogy, let's say there are only 2 main stream fast food joints, Burger King and McDonalds. Let's say Burger King is run as a franchise model, where Burger King corporate doesn't own or run any restaurants, but licenses the franchise and makes money by having franchise owners pay for food ingredients, the burger pattys, bread, fries, ect.
And now let's say McDonalds only has corporate owned restaurants, they own and run every single one and make their money by customers buying their food.
Now let's say one of the Burger King franchise owners decides they want to sell BBQ Ribs. The problem is Burger King Corp forbids them from selling ribs, because it would hurt burger sales and they wouldn't make money from them selling ribs.
And that is the problem. It doesn't matter if McDonalds wants to sell ribs or not, since they run the restaurant they can decide whatever they want to sell, but Burger King is forcing its franchise owners to only sell burgers because that's how they make their money and that's what makes it anti competitive.
To use an analogy, let's say there are only 2 main stream fast food joints, Burger King and McDonalds. Let's say Burger King is run as a franchise model, where Burger King corporate doesn't own or run any restaurants, but licenses the franchise and makes money by having franchise owners pay for food ingredients, the burger pattys, bread, fries, ect.
And now let's say McDonalds only has corporate owned restaurants, they own and run every single one and make their money by customers buying their food.
Now let's say one of the Burger King franchise owners decides they want to sell BBQ Ribs. The problem is Burger King Corp forbids them from selling ribs, because it would hurt burger sales and they wouldn't make money from them selling ribs.
And that is the problem. It doesn't matter if McDonalds wants to sell ribs or not, since they run the restaurant they can decide whatever they want to sell, but Burger King is forcing its franchise owners to only sell burgers because that's how they make their money and that's what makes it anti competitive.