I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store & Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big ones to commit fully to Google's version and companies like Samsung that might have been interested in providing a phone with Cyanogen, Lineage, etc etc simply couldn't do it.

It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.

Why would Google continue to license Android to Samsung when it can no longer make any revenue from Samsung phones? At that point it would only make sense for them to throw all their efforts into Pixel and catch up as best they can.

They would negotiate different licensing terms that require the licensee to risk their own capital on a bet that the consumer wants android devices with all of the associated Google services. That would be different from their current position of essentially paying for Google services with an in-kind payment of non-competition.

> "buy only from us or never from us"

And? Seems like a valid move (from both moral and corporate perspective) to me.

If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's abusing your monopoly.

Interfering in your customers' dealings that have nothing to do with you sounds morally awful to me.

How about Google just allows OEM to license without preventing them to customize as they see fit best for their customers? Or allow them to build other solutions, not forcing them to do it the Google way?

Its the exact same evil business practicr Microsoft did in the 90s, surprising Google got away with it that long. But also Microsoft wasn't fined until something like 10 years later...

The key difference at that time was that Microsoft had zero real competition and was stifling innovation in the OS and web space. Instead today Android is the only alternative to the most proprietary and richest company in the history of computing, which needs no legal remedies or special favors.

Android has something like 85-90% marketshare - not different then Windows back in the day.

Google bundling their Search with it is just pushing their own agenda.

"85-90% marketshare" by devices, not by revenue and definitely not profit.

> Android has something like 85-90% marketshare

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...

I was surprised by this figure, but it doesn't look true based on cursory google search?

That’s for the US. Change the filter to Europe and you get 74% Android, which will go up towards 90% in some national markets.

No need to change to Europe.

Worldwide is at 77% http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide/#...

Poland (#6 in the EU by population) is at 97% http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/poland/#mon...

Yet still most people develop for iOS first and then later port to Android, if at all. It's really not a comparable situation at all.

That was true about seven to ten years ago.

Absolutely still true today. If you think otherwise you are clearly not in the business of developing mobile apps. Ten years ago native mobile apps were barely even a thing.

Take the HQ app for just one recent high profile app out of countless other examples.

Absolutely not true today and I am in that business. The number of companies which are iOS-only or even iOS-first is negligible these days. In most cases both platforms are supported, often with Android having a head start.

I’ve been developing mobile apps professionally for 8 years. Clients want and care about iOS first. Android gets kicked down the road and outsourced to a third party every time. The only thing that’s changed is that people realize they need an android version eventually, instead of just ignoring it completely.

Maybe it’s different in some other markets but this is simply irrefutable in the USA and anybody trying to argue otherwise is just being disingenuous.

Eight years ago I'd agree with you, probably even five-ish, but for the past two, three years there is virtually no difference anymore and Android is usually the priority, except for some designer firms who still live in their Apple bubble.

For the US market it might be different, as it is one of the few markets where Apple is still the clear leader.

iOS rules the USA startup market, which is still where most of the money and energy is globally. Believe me I’d prefer that this were not the case.

I am not arguing iOS'es market share in the US, I am saying it is of faaaaaaaaar less relevance outside the US.

Both of you are insisting your own experience is more correct, without any imperical evidence or empathy. Take a moment to step back and realize your perspective isn't the only one.

What?

I cant do more than provide the numbers my statements are based on. Please go and check that before you make wild allgations about lack of evidence or empathy.

Zero competition?

OS/2, Linux, Apple, BeOS, etc.

Stifling innovation? How? The "web space" didnt even really exist.

The only one of those platforms that even kind of mattered on the desktop at the time was Apple and even they were way more niche than they were today. The web space certainly did matter and it was clear at the time it would come to matter a lot more if Microsoft wasn’t permitted to go on strangling it with IE and ActiveX.

And yet there was competition.

It is similar to today, respectively we have even less choice, we have two platforms, out of which one is mostly a lifestyle company and has a minor market share of ~20%, whereas the second is dominating the market at ~80%

And no, the web barely mattered in the mid to late 90s. That was the time when it was still nice there ;)

That was the first dot com boom. Are you seriously trying to argue the web didn’t matter at that point? It was all about the web.

The web was just slowly emerging at that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#/media/F...

15% vs 80% these days. And thats the "developed world", globally it was around 2%.

Google doesn't need to stop licensing GMS to OEM's. They simply need to stop giving it away for free and start charging OEM's to license it. And the OEM's that do license it will, of course, pass on the expenses to the consumer and raise the cost of the device. If the EU wants to stop Google from forcing OEM's to install their apps then congratulations you've now put OEM's in a position where they will now pay for GMS licensing and increase phone prices. Ironically, this decision will favor Google as the additional revenue from GMS licensing will allow them to decrease their dependency on search and further diversify their revenue streams. That 5 billion dollar fine will quickly be replenished with EU GMS licensing fees.

>The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google’s suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators—it’s of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.[1]

https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...

The happy ending is that megacorps stop screwing around and start obeying the laws, like everyone else.

In your fantasy scenario you didn't consider that the current version(s) of Android running on billions of devices are mostly open source, and there's nothing preventing Samsung, or Samsung + Sony + whoever to take that, combine it with one of the other existing app store and GApps replacement apps (Firefox, some maps e.g. Nokia, etc) and continuing like nothing happened. What are the Android app developers going to do, say "oh well" and settle for their market share shrinking to almost nothing which is what the Pixel amounts to? No, they will publish on the new Samsung app store.

And life moves on. Perhaps Jolla gets a boost, or we see a new or old player try something new.

This isn't a realistic scenario. If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Apple will continue to be a niche player because they like it that way, they aren't a threat and never have been. And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Microsoft would probably reenter the mobile arena as well. You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses, and they aren't going to disappear because Google is forced to comply with the law.

There is no scenario where Apple becomes a big scary monopoly that wins everything. That's what Google is, and that's why they're being fined.

Who is going to use Android with no app store and a bunch of crappy bundled apps? The answer is nobody. Look how far Amazon has been able to push that with all their engineering and marketing muscle.

Apple is a niche player only because they clung to their margins like a bag of heroin and let cheap Android phones eat their lunch. If it weren't for Android they would have zero serious competition.

I find myself in the very odd position today of having for the first time some sympathy with the Brexiters.

The same people that were already using J2ME and Symbian apps before iPhone became a thing.

Even Google used to have maps versions that targeted those platforms, before they went with Android.

I.E. nobody that can afford even the cheapest iPhone. The world has changed since J2ME mattered.

>If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating.

Every OEM release of Android is forked so your statement doesn't make sense.

>Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business.

Google doesn't need to confine their OS to just Pixel devices. They can also work with any OEM that wants to ship the Google version of Android and GMS - (Nokia, Motorola, etc). Given a choice, consumers would easily choose a phone running Android with GMS over any other non iOS device. Furthermore, Google could also close source Android and not continue to give Samsung a free OS to cake their services on. The decline of Samsung as they scramble to make Tizen their only smartphone OS would be entertaining to watch.

>And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish.

Yes, just like all of those desktop Linux distributions have flourished.

>You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses

You mean the same ones that can't write operating systems or secure their devices?