After the Commission’s July 2018 decision, we changed the licensing model for the Google apps we build for use on Android phones, creating new, separate licenses for Google Play, the Google Chrome browser, and for Google Search. In doing so, we maintained the freedom for phone makers to install any alternative app alongside a Google app.
Now we’ll also do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use.
Low effort initiative that will only serve to annoy users. I don’t think this addresses the core issue of the power large megacorporations have, but what do I know.
“Low effort initiative that will only serve to annoy users. I don’t think this addresses the core issue of the power large megacorporations have, but what do I know.”
Yeah. Asking people to make a choice is such a horrible,horrible thing to do isn’t it?
Thank GOD for the Gnome3 dev team–right?
.
Have Microsoft’s Browser selection carousel changed anything to the issue ? It’s not like they aren’t related…
IE is now an also-ran compared to Chrome dominance. Now with everyone and their dog switching to their rendering engine, it’s just switching one monopoly for another.
Kochise,
I have major issues with the way government approaches anti-trust enforcement. But regardless of that, I think it did have an impact. If microsoft’s power had gone unchecked, things would have turned out very differently for us today. Not only with browsers, but if microsoft knew that the government was not going to enforce anti-trust at all then it’s almost certain they would have gone on to exploit their monopoly in other industries. The cell phone wars could have turned out very differently for example. Remember that anti-trust, like many laws, acts as a deterrent and can have a real impact even when it’s not applied (as long as the risk of consequences are real).
With that said, I think it’s very stupid that we’re back here again only with a different company. Forced bundling should just be prohibited up front so that we don’t have to repeat these anti-trust shenanigans every time…
Alfman, I get where you’re coming from but at the same time when you’re first building a platform, there is no browser for you. Google had to get people using android before alternatives were built. IE wasn’t always dominant. Microsoft had to unseat Netscape. The latter was included on ISP install disks for years.
For instance, I have a small OS project. Mozilla isn’t going to take upstream patches for firefox nor could I remotely use the branding now. I have to first get some decent market share before they will bless me with taking patches. The same is true for many other projects. A better punishment for Google would be to have to take patches for Chromium from everyone as long as they were quality. Since they own the engine, it would at least allow the little guy to also use their browser platform. It’s not like we can use firefox.
Even with a big company like Google or Microsoft, it’s hard to break into the phone space. The entire thing is centered around ecosystem control.
laffer1,
You want 3rd parties to deliver browsers and other software for your platform, which I get. However with regards to the antitrust problems we’re talking about, that doesn’t seem to fit the same pattern since it’s really the opposite of the what we’re talking about.
So as it could hypothetically apply to your OS project. Say you already have native ‘A’ and ‘B’ apps for your OS, but you’d like to distribute google maps because your OS lacks a map service and you think google maps is the best choice. So far so good, but what google might do is to insist on replacing your ‘A’ and ‘B’ apps with googles services too. Google using it’s influence in one market to impose it’s will in other markets is frowned upon by antitrust. This is obviously unfair to competing apps/services and is very similar to the kind of coercion microsoft used to promote IE.
Sorry I don’t really follow. What would be the purpose of these patches? Since this code is open source, why can’t you just apply the patches yourself? Why does google need to be forced to take your patches?
Of course, this is the main motivation for regulation, to ensure that powerful incumbents don’t get to control the market through coercion.