Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0?
> The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms
The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.
You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices.
That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
"EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition."
I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too?
> worthy several billion in punishment
That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?
An example where this happened is http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...
The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS?
Obviously you have the positions reversed then, but it's still the same sort of tying, and I'm pretty sure those are the correct positions for Google too. You aren't pushing Google apps on people who want the Play Store, you're pushing the Play Store on people who want Google apps.
In other words they're also tying iOS to their hardware and vice versa. This is supposed to make it less of an antitrust issue?
> They are also very far away from a monopoly.
They sure look like a monopoly to an iOS app developer or iOS app customer who wants app store competition to drive down app store margins.
Apple is acting independently. They've built differentiating features (like custom software) which you can only get by buying Apple's products. Apple hopes that customers will use their products because they're better than the competition. That is exactly what antitrust law is meant to encourage.
Google is not acting independently. They've built differentiating features, but licensed them under terms that prevent competition. Google hopes that customers will use their products because OEMs are contractually forbidden from selling competing products. That is what antitrust law is designed to prevent.
Then how do I have a stack of history books that say the government broke up the 20th century AT&T monopoly under the antitrust laws? And Standard Oil and U.S. Steel before that?
You seem to be implying that if Google did exactly what they're doing now except that they made their own hardware and refused to license Android to third parties then there would be less of an antitrust problem, even though then there would unambiguously be less competition than there is now.
The same if Android licensers were more free to provide their own solutions (see what Amazon did with the Fire brand) instead of forced to bundle Googles services on every device.
Android is 85% of the smartphone market. iOS is 13% of the smartphone market. Android is a monopoly, iOS is not.
I think if a company wanted to create a strong branding, for which it would be known that the experience is distinctly NOT android (even if it's based on android) then that is more acceptable.
'Android phone' implies that the google play store and apps are on the device.
isn't this what amazon does?
They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.
source?
Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google.
See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...
Google quote: "Android™ should have a trademark symbol the first time it appears in a creative."
Brand Guidelines http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand....
Yes, I do know who you are -- in fact, we have met -- but Google should not be using Android™ if it's not trademarked ;-)
>There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The $200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5
Their tables are doing much better.
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-in...
That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all.
Which is the most important part the EC complains about.
The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation.
At least, I hope. If they are seriously considering the whole OS as a trust issue that is insane. Anyone can fork or reuse the component parts below the Google app layer with the Apache 2 license. There are even projects like http://www.shashlik.io/ to run Android apps natively on other systems. The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms (besides the proprietary POS blobs every phone manufacturer shoves into a forked Linux kernel with oodles of GPL violations) is the Google apps themselves, but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed.