Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal.
Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.
That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.
The same goes for Samsung and its own browser, simply called "Internet": people often have heard of Google Chrome but won't go looking if there's a working "internet button" right in front of them. Other vendors use the same trick.
Personally, I would think this is a good thing as it takes away some of the monopoly Google has, if Samsung etc. would just give their browsers regular updates through the Play Store/their own app store (latest version I can find on the Play Store still uses Chrome 59).
There is no technical reason to install the Google app or to install Chrome. Vendors can easily install their own WebKit/Blink engines for all the WebView/technical requirements (as seen by alternative ROMs) and the Google app can be deleted without affecting the other Play Services.
I think this is a ploy to prevent companies like Microsoft from coming with their own ROMs that focuses on Microsoft applications (Cortana, Bing, Edge mobile, Outlook, Microsoft Office etc., MS have a near complete stack of applications for Android) without offering any pre-installed competition like Google does.
Which only serves as strengthening Chrome's position (Chrome being a I/O vector for Google's ad market).
> and they already dominate search, so why bother.
Which obliterates any chance of a remotely widespread alternative emerging. The homescreen search bar is technically a widget like any other yet it is the only one that cannot even be removed from any stock launcher!
Imagine a manufacturer whose part of its proposition (whether through deals or genuine customer interest) is for whatever reason to sell a phone that comes loaded up with Firefox (or Opera) and has Bing (or DuckDuckGo, or Qwant) as a search widget. This is currently impossible and the decision aims to change that. The fact that Google uses its Android - because there is no viable alternative platform - and Play Store - because without the apps the platform is useless to the general public - dominance in the phone market to strong-arm manufacturers into preloading extensions of its search and ad market is a huge issue, turning the "Google experience" on Android into an all-or-nothing proposition.
But there is a related yet more subtle issue that isn't addressed: log into the Play Store, and you're helpfully logged into all other Google services such as Gmail, Chrome, Calendar, Photos... The only thing you can subsequently prevent is automatic syncing, but cannot disable each one of those services at all (unless you disable the whole app). So basically you log in to download whatever app on the Play Store and you turn on a huge firehose aimed at Google's datacenters. As an Android user the feeling I have of the "Google experience" is one of coercion, not freedom.
BTW your iTunes/Apple Music example is interesting, although it could be developed further to better match the situation.
Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.
Google is forcing installations on Samsung phones, LG phones, etc through their contract.
It is entirely possible what Apple is doing would be illegal IF they licensed/sold the OS to other OEMs.
Android’s rise to dominance was mostly because of partners like Samsung.
Personal preference but Samsung phones are the only ones which I see are comparable to latest iPhones in terms of speed, features and price.
With co-branding?
And all of the profits going to Samsung?
This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same...
Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone manufacturers are not "competitors" to Google.
Recently KaiOS was gaining traction and what did google? Virtually bought their presence/dominance there… sorry "supported project".
This is so back-asswards.
This is not an open/closed dichotomy. This is a free/controlled market issue.
If Google manufactured all Android phones, and Android were closed source, and Android came pre-installed with the Play Store, Search, and Chrome, I think it wouldn't be a problem, right?
That turns this into an open/closed dichotomy.
That’s what they’re doing here, just like MS did in the 90s with Windows licenses.
It's plausible that Android would have nearly as many users.
Google, for instance, could have all of the current manufacturers agree to OEM their Android devices. Possibly with co-branding.
Of course once you have the device you can do whatever you ... can. Similarly once you have your Android phone you can install an alternative browser.
In fact I have had Samsung phones with two app stores and two browsers. Guess which one was was I unable to delete without rooting the phone first?
I am not a fan of whataboutism, but in this case it just seems unfair that the creator of a (more) open ecosystem is taking all the beating.
Note: I actually hate the search widget as well as the assistant, but there are hundreds of alternative home screen apps.
Honestly your comment is pretty much kindergarten level argumentation, so I think that maybe you should just take your ball and go home.
The question was regarding to the logic behind why Google is getting fined, while Apple is not, and I think I answered that question pretty well.
If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?
The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law.
A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.
IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right?
But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem?
The logic of this is just baffling to me.
And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.
As I posted elsewhere:
Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones?
With co-branding?
And all of the profits going to Samsung?
This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same...
Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone manufacturers are not "competitors" to Google.
If
1. Android still reached 80% of market 2. Terms of OEM prohibited Samsung from making phones with another OS
That would be the same anticompetitive violation
The terms would say that Samsung installs the version of Android 2 (the new and closed source one) that Google tells it to. As manufacturing partners are always told what to do.
That doesn't mean it is wrong. =)
Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine.
I just don't understand the logic of this at all.