FTC spearheading anti trust investigation into Google's app requirements for OEM's

[Artdeco]

The Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement with the Justice Department to spearhead an investigation of Google’s Android business, the people said. FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because the matter is confidential.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-u-s-antitrust-scrutiny-over-android-iezf41sg

As a legal matter, I agree with the investigation, as an end user, damn, I'd much rather use Google's native apps.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Anyone that remembers the MS IE situation was waiting for this shoe to drop.

 

[Megatomic]

Anyone that remembers the MS IE situation was waiting for this shoe to drop.

Sadly this.

 

[sweenish]

I'm a bit for the investigation.

Best case if found guilty, Google just releases another app that lets you choose which Google apps you want to put on your device, and other apps are able to deeply integrate.

Google used to be all about being everywhere and being open. Now they're not, and I was bummed for a bit. But someone wants to use Cortana over Google Now, they should be able to with the same kind of OS hooks that Google Now offers.

Good things have come from Google isolating themselves into their own ecosystem, but that's not why I initially started using Chrome.

 

[ControlD]

First, I REALLY don't want this to turn into a Apple vs. Android vs. Microsoft thread as we have plenty of those. However ...

Don't ALL mobile platforms give priority to their services?

 

[sweenish]

Google allows its search app and maps and whatnot to do things that competitors can't, I believe.

I know Cortana can't do what Google Now does. That, paired with Google's share in the market, is a problem.

I feel like requiring some of Google's apps to get access to Google's services, while very similar to MS and IE, isn't too demanding though. The way people in the EU have to do it now seems like a hassle.

This could also lead to some shrinking of the system partition, giving users more of the space they paid for.

 

[A5]

First, I REALLY don't want this to turn into a Apple vs. Android vs. Microsoft thread as we have plenty of those. However ...

Don't ALL mobile platforms give priority to their services?

Yes, but I think the complaint here is that Google requires OEMs to install a wide swath of their (unrelated) apps in order to have the Play Store/Play Services, which are a large part of what makes Android into what people actually think of when they want an Android device.

Without Play Services, you end up with something like FireOS...

 

[Dulanic]

I've never understood these issues... it's like going after Ford for putting Ford seats in their cars? You use their OS because it has these things that make it what it is. I always thought the MS/IE complaint was just as stupid. IE was part of the OS really and you can always install other things either way.

 

[ControlD]

Yes, but I think the complaint here is that Google requires OEMs to install a wide swath of their (unrelated) apps in order to have the Play Store/Play Services, which are a large part of what makes Android into what people actually think of when they want an Android device.

Without Play Services, you end up with something like FireOS...

OK, that makes sense.

I've never understood these issues... it's like going after Ford for putting Ford seats in their cars? You use their OS because it has these things that make it what it is. I always thought the MS/IE complaint was just as stupid. IE was part of the OS really and you can always install other things either way.

I always felt pretty much the same way. I'm sure I must be missing the big picture in all of this.

 

[Artdeco]

I've never understood these issues... it's like going after Ford for putting Ford seats in their cars? You use their OS because it has these things that make it what it is. I always thought the MS/IE complaint was just as stupid. IE was part of the OS really and you can always install other things either way.

The manufacturers have no choice but to use Android, to have access to the Play Store, they have to follow Google's rules and install Google Apps.

 

[sweenish]

OK, that makes sense.
I always felt pretty much the same way. I'm sure I must be missing the big picture in all of this.

Netscape went out of business because of IE bundling. It closes the doors on possible competitors.

With that said, it's really sad that enough people thought IE was "good enough" that other browsers couldn't even compete. I was in that camp, IE 6 plus spybot + something else never got me infected. But then I discovered Firefox and ad-blocking. That was glorious.

 

[quikah]

Netscape went out of business because of IE bundling. It closes the doors on possible competitors.

Err, well, Netscape 4 was kind of a piece of junk, can't blame it all on IE being bundled.

 

[sweenish]

It was one example to illustrate my point. It's the one everyone has at least heard of. Refuting the example does not refute the point.

 

[Mopetar]

Yes, but I think the complaint here is that Google requires OEMs to install a wide swath of their (unrelated) apps in order to have the Play Store/Play Services, which are a large part of what makes Android into what people actually think of when they want an Android device.

Without Play Services, you end up with something like FireOS...

It's this as well as a few other things, such as now allowing manufacturers to release a combination of devices that are Google-blessed Android and Android without Google. Either they get on board with Google 100% or they get nothing.

It should also be noted that this isn't just a case of Google being evil, because they do have some good reasons for doing what they do, the primary one being that the manufacturers were notorious for poor support to the great annoyance of Google.

Personally, I think Google should be able to say that if you want to use the Play Store, you also must include their other apps. What I think Google should be prohibited from doing is telling manufacturers that if just one of their products doesn't do things Google's way, then none of their products get the Google-licensed version of Android or Google's services.

Some of the manufacturers or carriers might test the water with such an opportunity, but I think most will find that Google's services are better than whatever they themselves might create and that customers will appreciate that value more.

 

[dawheat]

Yes, but I think the complaint here is that Google requires OEMs to install a wide swath of their (unrelated) apps in order to have the Play Store/Play Services, which are a large part of what makes Android into what people actually think of when they want an Android device.

Without Play Services, you end up with something like FireOS...

But that's vs. Apple who doesn't let any other OEMs into their ecosystem - which is worse?

I get this complaint for markets where Android has majority marketshare, but I don't get it in the US when Apple and Android are pretty even. Seems hard to make a monopoly argument when there is a competitor with equal market share (and the lion's share of profit).