European Commission presses charges against Google for anti-competitive behavior

EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager formally announced the decision to press charges, accusing the Android stronghold of "abusing its dominant position" and "imposing unjustified restrictions and conditions on manufacturers of devices..."
This is a discussion for a news article. To read the whole news, click here

71 Comments

45. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Apple doesn't have OEMs, so they are forcing no OEM into anything. Google can be sued, their entire core OS has to abide by certain open source rules, its what you get for being part of a COMMUNITY. When you start pulling your muscle to screw that Community expect the F*U* Police to come knocking.

58. BobbyDigital

Posts: 2124; Member since: May 29, 2014

When Microsoft was being a monopoly, I can guarantee you were standing there waving the MS flag proudly.

79. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

At that time I found it idiotic just like I have stated that I find it idiotic now. However, I am responding to the people that don't understand it, and why the EU sees it that way. And if the past is anything to go off of, Google will be hit, just a matter of how much, and what restrictions or changes they may need to make to their Policy. MS didn't have open source rules to play by, they still got hit because of their oem dealings (nothing to do with the customer perse).

88. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

I can't recall any time in Microsoft's history, that they were a monopoly. I was never forced to use Windows, Office, IE, Windows Media Player...nothing. I made a choice to use them because they were better than most offerings at the time. Today that si no longer the case. I use Chrome because its faster. I use to use Firefox, but now its as slow as iE. Windows Media Player is a resource hog, but its nowhere near as bad as iTunes. I use MediaMonkey now. I dont care what an OEM's market-share is, it doesn't force me to use their stuff. I buy it and use it out fo choice. A real monopoly means you have no choice. Liek how Apple has a monopoly on using their apps on IOS. Sure you can install whatever you want. But you are forced to use them by default. No other platform on the planet forces you to use any application by default.

7. joeytaylor

Posts: 957; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

Extortion at it's finest

17. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3948; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Seems like the EU just want to squeeze money from Google/Alphabet. If you have an android phone you are free to put another android OS on it and you can easly download another browser and use different search engines. The charges against Google/Alphabet are BS.

46. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

'free' because not all phones are boot unlocked, requiring the 'community' to come up with a 'fix' that will then brick your warrant (yes I deny warranties because of this). I agree it is BS, but under current rule, and under past rulings (ala MS), Google is fighting a loosing battle.

18. Moose

Posts: 418; Member since: Jan 05, 2015

Google does not force OEM's to use Android. They are completely free to invent their own OS. Google has made Android free to use by any OEM, so they deserve to make some money from it. This can't be anticompetitive as no company is forced to use Android. Google could have gone the Apple route and monopolised Android for Nexus devices. Apple is the more monopolistic, anticompetitive company it seems to me.

26. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

its still fine even if it isnt free, just look at microsoft's windows.. OEM pay ms to use their OS inside laptops and PCs, and it have IE/edge browser, mspaint, WMP, ms office, and other microsoft's software as default, and its totally fine.. no charge.. :-/

47. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

MS got caught forcing OEMs to not install stuff. That's what hurt them. And that's what is getting Google right now. It is not about the end user, it is not about being to do this or that, it is about an OEM using the software then being denied to use the software to their liking. If it is considered anti competitive you will get hit.

72. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

But Google isnt forcing any OEM to not install anything.. Didn't Samsung phones have Google Now and S Voice? From day one Samsung and HTC had their own custom browsers on Android phones. Moto started doing it later on. All this was before Chrome came to phones. And after Chrome some Android phones still have another browser pre installed on them. This is not the same thing that happened with MS.

80. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

MS didn't stop anyone either, they made it difficult, they made it not worth their time. Other devices can choose other options, however, as stated in the filings, Google is being anticompetitive to make sure Chrome is what they choose and not their own offering. Google did this to Moto with their maps Skyhook "complaint regarding business interference filed in Massachusetts state court (embedded below) states that Google's Andy Rubin, head of the Android project, demanded that Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha drop Skyhook's technology from Motorola handsets or Google would remove Android certification from those handsets." This goes in line with other things Google has "strong armed" and ones we don't even know about. This is what got MS in trouble, and now google is being looked at for similar tactics.

83. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

But the main issue with MS back then was only IE was pre installed or only Windows Media Player was pre installed. Google hasnt stopped any OEM from pre installing any of their own apps. Carriers too. If anything Apple should also be looked at for not allowing carrier apps on their phones. We complain about carrier, OEM bloatware on Android phones...and yet the EU is claiming anti competitive....its backwards...

48. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Apple doesn't have OEMs. Google is open source by default, they couldn't stop people using it if they wanted to. They would have to close source it, and they almost cant under their current licensing. Enter Google Android. Since Google controls the base android, they control the next step, this gets them into trouble. Because they can now take this 'free' source, and start to manipulate it that if you want to be competitive against other OEMs you almost have to use Google Android. Sure you can come up with a competitor, nothing is stopping you. But at what cost, and what did google's dealing do to stop that competition. No one was forced to use Windows either, in fact Linux has been around just as long, yet somehow, Linux in the desktop space is a fraction of anything. And yet, MS was found guilty of using their marketshare, and position to force OEMs into something.

73. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

They might be the only OEM but if Android disappeared right now...they would be next just because the EU has a hard on for monopolies, real or perceived. MS wasnt an OEM and they got hit. Apple would definitely be next...the EU just wouldnt use OEMs as the victim.

81. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

They do, but when they are trying to make sure is that the monopoly isn't using their stance to pressure things. If people are choose one product over another because it is good. then so be it. But if that 'choice' was the result of the company strong arming everyone behind the scenes and there was no real choice after all...then there is an issue. Even now MS is a monopoly in Europe. Difference being that ms had a 10yr screw over. I feel Google is facing the same screw. I don't like it, but I see what they are doing, and why.

84. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Read what I just wrote about Apple and bloat ware on their phones. Apple would definitely be next. They should thank Google for Android dominating market share.

20. Shocky unregistered

The EU is a joke, enough said.

23. cytyler

Posts: 24; Member since: Sep 27, 2015

If Google charged, Apple, Microsoft and Blackberry should.

49. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

apple has no oems MS already got hit, hell they couldn't even put a music player into their os... imagine if you couldn't play music but had to go to the store and 'choose' a 3rd party service at random. I don't agree with it, even if my tone is devil advocates, only because the precedent that was set prior with the MS ruling, Google will get hit, but how much is the question and what rules will be put in place for the EU area...no google music installed? When you open chrome the splash page is a download link to your competitors (happened to IE)...

27. talon95

Posts: 990; Member since: Jul 31, 2012

I never understand their logic. They would sue me for handing out free coffee on the street just because it came with sugar and the sugar makers logo on the cup. Beggars can't be choosers. Pull out of Europe and leave them with just Apple and see how much they like a real monopoly.

50. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

MS isn't to bad there, they would pick up the slack.

28. jove39

Posts: 2143; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

"...the Commission determined that Google is breaching European competition law by pre-loading its applications and services (such as the Chrome browser, Maps, and Search) on Android devices in a manner that does more harm than good..." WTF is this...how in sane world did commission found chrome, maps and search harmful...this is outrageous...google should counter-sue their ass.

29. Shocky unregistered

I thought they were optional, they can include whatever alternative they like.

31. jove39

Posts: 2143; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

If OEM want play store then they have to include google apps, like chrome, gmail, maps search etc. Some OEM (Xiaomi & Oneplus) in china region don't use play store and thay dont have to include google apps by default. In rest of world they ship devices with play store and google apps.

52. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Moto was threatened to be kicked out of the Open Handset Alliance if it didn't use Maps, and bared from google services, when at the time, their mapping service of choice was better. Where is that mapping service now? So it is not about the app that is harmful, this is about the roadblocks they put in every year, to make sure Google is used and nothing else. And if you don't think your google data matters.....95% of googles profit says otherwise.

74. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

And Moto could have walked and went the Amazon route. And Amazon is doing just fine with their fork of Android. Amazon proves all this is bull.

30. talon95

Posts: 990; Member since: Jul 31, 2012

I know. We should sue when the grocery store gives out coupons. They come with a product, are free, and give you incentive to purchase other products from them. It's diabolical !! It's even more ironic that they are going after Google instead of Apple. Google lets you change the defaults and install lots of alternatives. Someone must be paying them off. Turn off all Google services in Europe for a week and watch their economy crash until they shut up.

78. techguyone

Posts: 214; Member since: May 18, 2013

I hope that any app thats on the handset can be uninstalled and reinstalled from google play, frankly just being able to 'disable' is meaningless, it still takes up space on your device. And for those ppl who say nothing will happen, think again, the same thing happened to MS in the 90's, they had to comply too.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.