Official: EU goes after Google, alleges it uses Android to kill competition The EU's competition authority thinks it has a smoking gun against Google. Consumers suffered because Google’s contracts with phone OEMs prevented the market from creating a better Android, the EU Commission alleged today. It has sent a formal Statement of Objections to Google that forces Google to come up with remedies or …
CyanogenMod != CyanogenOS
I discovered this shortly after buying a Swift, various shenanigans were required to root the thing but CyanogenMod comes pre-rooted.
In the end I just replaced CyanogenOS with CyanogenMod because a rooted CyanogenOS won't accept OTA updates.
Personally, if I was in charge of this stuff for the EU, I'd make the phone retailers sell them with just enough of a bootloader to select and download an OS as part of the setup process.
The following operating systems are available for your device; please select one:
Windows 11.05.253 Mobile (by Microsoft)
Android 7.01.028 (by Google)
Android 7.01.028 (by Amazon)
Android 7.01.028 (by RIM)
Android 7.01.028 (by Naeem's 24 hour Barbershop and Phone/PC repair)
Firefox OS (by Mozilla)
Hi Gotno ISWI
my wileyfox has cyeanogenOS on it, which updates itself "Over-The-Air" (OTA).. I believe what the previous poster was refering to was that it stops doing OTA updates if you root your phone.
I can't confirm or deny this as my phone isn't rooted (haven't found a reason to do so yet - cyanogenOS really is very flexible)
If you are looking at the swift I can strongly recommend it :) battery is good enough to still have some juice at the end of the day, takes micro-sd cards + 2 sim cards, battery is replaceable, I've dropped it a few times and no cracks in the glass so far, haven't had any issues with speed, mine came with a screenprotector already applied :)
one downside: The microSD port is a little bit recessed, not all your microUSB cables will fit completely - I have some that do and some that don't.. the one that comes with it works a treat, so did the anker cables that I bought:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anker%C2%AE-5-Pack-Premium-Assorted-Lengths/dp/B00QT2BLC4
Is this not a wish to express to your phone supplier? It seems to have little to do with Google other than as the hypothetical provider of the underlying OS in most of the examples. Whether any phone provider or manufacturer cares to develop, test, and provide their customers with such choices is something for them to decide.
Arguably, it is for Google to decide whether they will develop and test GMS on operating systems that they do not develop, and ultimately provide operability assurances to those who offer it on their phones. If they did not do that it would be on the phone manufacturer and provider to do the work, in addition to porting NonAndroid to the hardware and assuring its operation with their network, to insure correct operation of either Google GSM or other services they might want to substitute. It is not entirely obvious that they would wish do do that, or why.
I'm currently sporting a wileyfox swift with cyanogenos - I wouldn't mind getting an iphone with cyanogenos so that I could share chargers with the girlfriend :)
Or she could get a wilefox too (we have more micro usb chargers than lightning ones) and we could install ios on it.
For those that think that sounds crazy, stop and have a think about why you believe that its normal for hardware to be tied to software.
If they get rid of the compatibility tests, it will also make it fun to try and find apps that work as expected with your phone. Back to the good old days of early Android. Those apps with embedded maps? They won't work on phones without the maps APIs. You want to monetise? You'll need to implement a load of different payment APIs for all the stores.
A lot of the APIs were moved in to other services from core Android, so that they could be updated without a full firmware update. That's pretty important as a lot of carriers and manufacturers rarely provide firmware updates.
Ideally (from my point of view) they'd move even more of them out so that even more security and other bug fixes could be easily fixed. For example, the stagefright bugs weren't able to be fixed without a firmware update, as they were in the core OS.
...so that they could be updated without a full firmware update. That's pretty important as a lot of carriers and manufacturers rarely provide firmware updates.
The solution to this problem (carriers and manufacturers not providing updates) is to cut out the middle men and have an update mechanism that works without them. I don't expect my internet provider to manage pc updates for me, why should my mobile provider be updating my phone?
>The solution to this problem (carriers and manufacturers not providing updates) is to cut out the middle men and have an update mechanism that works without them. I don't expect my internet provider to manage pc updates for me, why should my mobile provider be updating my phone?
There are technical reasons why that is not possible with Android. If it could be done, Google would have done it already. Moving more APIs to Google Play services is a half-way house (but may slso serve their business motives by differentiating Google Android from ASOP). Google's other OS, ChromeOS, is updated as required, and when buying the hardware you are told how many years it will be updated for.
You're right that it's business reasons, but it's not Google's fault. It's the carriers, and to a lesser extend the phone vendors.
Google makes a release of Android.
The phone manufacturers take that firmware, and customize it for each model they have. They add drivers etc to make it work. Then they add different (their marketing people would claim "improved") launchers, camera apps, etc, so that if you use it it's a bit different from the other Androids (and the shop salespeople can claim it's "better".
Then the mobile phone networks (carriers) decide which phones they'll sell and subsidise. In exchange for selling a phone, they'll ask the phone manufacturers to make a few changes. The obvious ones are to load the right settings so it works on their network, but they'll also ask for their app to be preloaded, custom branded backgrounds, etc etc
So you end up with a LOT of different variants of each phone.
Then a new Android version is released, or even a patch, then they have to do all that customization work again...
It's a lot simpler in, say, Windows where there are only 2 versions (x86 and x64) so MS only have to build 2 versions of a patch. Although MS probably have to do a lot more testing.
Those "opponents" are any of the phone makers who might dare to fork Android or offer variations in terms of search, location, etc, that would reduce Google's advert revenue-generation opportunities.
You know, the sort of competition that normally benefits consumers.
The commisioner was very clear that they see Apple completely differently. Apple sell devices that have an OS on, they don't provide that OS to other manufacturer's. In this case Google are seen as more like MS than Apple. It's the pressure on the other manufacturers to exclude competing services that is the problem.
If Apple had a monopoly on handset sales then the EU would doubtless look at them. With their current market share they're safe. (And Apple wouldn't want everyone to have an iPhone, that'd ruin the cachet.)
If Google forced all Handset manufacturers installing Android to badge their phones under the Google brand, that would be OK?
Google Galaxy S7 by Samsung, Google G5 by LG, etc...?
I think the EU would quickly change their position if there were only Google and Apple phones on the market.
Nothing is stopping manufacturers from making non-Android phones, but in order to preserve the user experience, Google requires certain functionality to make Android work. People want that Google functionality without having to pay Google royalties (in the form of included search and app store, the ONLY way Google monetizes Android).
"I want the Google Play Store, and Google Search, and Google Maps, but jeese, I hate that my OS says Google everywhere. Why can't it say my companies name instead, but still rely 100% on Google doing the legwork behind the scenes? For FREE!"
"I want the Google Play Store, and Google Search, and Google Maps, but jeese, I hate that my OS says Google everywhere. Why can't it say my companies name instead, but still rely 100% on Google doing the legwork behind the scenes? For FREE!"
Well, that's the price you pay for pretending it's Open Source. It either is, or it is not, and as far as I can tell it Google's statement on this matter ("It's Open Source, aren't we lovely? Remember when we're in court, we do not do evil,. honest, trust us") appear to be substantially at odds with reality.
Which is, in my opinion, yet another example of Google following the Microsoft decades long playbook to the letter.
What other OS options do the manufacturers have? Not iOS, not Blackberry's. So it's effectively Windows Phone or an Android fork such as FireOS or CyanogenMod? Unfortunately, Google's term forbid them from selling non-Google approved Android, so there goes that. Google would probably classify SailfishOS as an Android fork. All the above explains why OEM's are stuck and can't afford to rock the boat.
>What other OS options do the manufacturers have? Not iOS, not Blackberry's.
Well, you've just identified an area where the idea of competition breaks down. You can't have true like-for-like competition for thing like bus services, cos that would mean that every half hour three buses from different companies turn up at the same bus stop. Software support for OSs is similar - much wasted work (inefficient) to supply users with much the same application but for various OSs.
Another example is eBay - sellers want the most people possible to bid on their goods, so why would they advertise on another service? The very nature of eBay precludes competition.
We see this same tale spun over and over, with the only change in players the companies in the crosshairs. Being an American, I could decree this some kind of anti-American witch hunt by the EU, but I actually doubt that's the case. More likely, this is down to American companies not having the expertise and/or connections in other parts of the world to ensure they are complying with both the letter and spirit of the law.
Yes, Microsoft got busted in the US for anti-competitive behavior, but it was so egregious, they pretty much dared the Dept. of Justice to come after them. It didn't help MS that many of their competitors, partners, and customers complained loudly and frequently about the raw deal they were getting. Google has skated by for the most part, as Apple actually maintains a strong market position in the US, and the wireless carriers are the ones with targets painted on their backs. If the political capital is going to be spent, Verizon and AT&T are first on the firing line.
Did Google sin? Perhaps. The US doesn't seem to have a problem with the kind of agreements that Google engaged in as long as there are other competitors or other avenues for relief. Anti-trust penalties are often a last resort, and as we saw with MS, they often amount to little more than painful handshake. The days of trust busting of AT&T, Standard Oil, etc. are long gone. Not because of crony capitalism (though I'm sure that doesn't help), but because it's too easy to point across the ocean and say that in order to compete worldwide, American companies are going against state-controlled or state-supported, entrenched entities (how true that is is a debate for another time).
The problem in US is that politicians are too afraid to touch the companies that feed them... since a cap to founding politicians was declared illegal, and politicians costs skyrocketed (more than one year of presidential campaign? Are you kidding? Cut it to one-two months and costs will be hugely cut as well), politicians need to find funds, and some rich companies will be happy to fund them, as long as they don't enforce any anti-trust rule (or others) on them. Sherman will be rolling in his grave...
It's too easy to just blame money. We had a public financing system (still do, technically), but it's been superseded because the amounts are not that great and there are limitations placed on the candidate in terms of what can be done with it.
Additionally, one needs to keep in mind that the parties, though that participate in the political sphere, are private entities. The GOP and Democrats are just really large special interest groups, albeit with a special interest in being political parties with platforms that cover more than just a single issue. The "year-long" process is actually the nomination fight, which replaced the proverbial smoke-filled room. In fact, states purposefully started sponsoring the nomination primaries in the late 19th century to reduce the influence (and corruption) inherent in the party machine. Tammany Hall in New York was notorious for trading favors and money for political capital and nominations.
The actual general election is only a few months long, starting with the conventions in July and culminating on Election Day in November.
Darn that pesky old 1791 first amendment, only a couple of years younger than the All Writs Act, so clearly of dubious applicability now we are in the Internet Age and so much smarter than those of the late eighteenth century who wrote and passed it.
Not sure where the First Amendment comes in here, unless you are referring to the reinterpretation by the Roberts Court that money = speech. If that's the case, then I'm still not sure the applicability to my comments, so I assume it was to someone else.
But to build on this, this concept that the Founders and Framers (often overlapping, but not always the same) were infallible and prophetic does need to cool down a bit. If you read source documents from the time, you see a very quick schism appear as to what the Constitution represented or codified, and that fight resulted in the Bill of Rights being introduced just two years after the Constitution was ratified, and the Bill of Rights itself being ratified two years after introduction (after going through numerous drafts, revisions, edits, and by some accounts, sloppy version control and copying). The All Writs Act is another example of those Founders and Framers quickly trying to do an end-around of the Constitution they created; the Sedition Act is an even more abhorrent example. That the very same men who created this Godly document also turned around and created such things should really close the book on any discussion about their exceptional nature or intelligence.
It's a document, written 229 years ago, quickly ignored by its creators when it suited them, and began a simmering battle of the role of the state and the government that has boiled over once and had to be settled with blood. You don't need to get into revisionism based on current standards of morality to see that the document only works because we collectively ignore all the mechanisms available to keep it alive and instead rely on hacks, ancient case law, and legal landmines. It's honestly reached a point where, like the Cold War, mutually assured destruction is all that keeps the peace.
I'd argue that few, even the large companies, don't appreciate the subtle differences in US vs EU anti-trust regulation. Any move by government in the US against a company is quickly viewed as socialist or government overreach into the free market. That perception and the cosy revolving door between large companies and regulatory agencies, have effectively neutered effective enforcement. The US measure of "public good" is often just "price".
The EU, with its slightly more social democratic approach, is not that shy to employ regulatory intervention to guide the "hidden hand" of the free market. My impression at least is that the EU prefers having smaller, competing companies compared to the behemoths popular and so admired in the US. As a side-effect, it helps limit the proliferation of "too big to fail" entities.
They're not stopping them from shipping Windows Phones phone, but they are stopping them from shipping any other Android variants which would, arguably, have a good chance of competing. See how no-one, apart for Oppo which was a new company for that purpose, have shipped CyanogenMod phone. They were forced to give in a license GMS to create CyanogenOS (which is just a skinned Android like Sense, TouchWiz, etc).
Nah.
Google needs Apple who needs Google. Otherwise the Anti-trust people would be wetting their knickers all hot and bothered about getting one/both in the dock and facing very large fines.
MS is a mere bit part player and that is not the fault of the other two. MS have been shooting themselves in the foot quite regularly over their mobile business for a number of years. Shame really because it (and it pains me to say this) the hardware ain't all that bad.
Google isn't shouting that there's plenty of competition in the form of apple, winphone (stop sniggering), blackberry, Firefox os (if that's still a thing), jumla and sail fish.
Not that you can walk into your local phone shop and walk out with any of them bar apple and winphone.....
So there's loads of competition and besides, look Europe we're literally giving away android licences and throwing money at vendors surely that's a good thing?
Yep, no problem here. None at all.....
(ol' BB because Google know everything and wants you to be happy.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
)
This has been so obviously on the cards for a long time; the parallels with the antitrust convictions of Microsoft between 1994-2013 are striking.
I'm just amazed that Google management refused to see this and amend their agreements a long time ago.
If they'd done that and competed on excellence and support for OEMs (including developing a unified patch/update C.I. pipeline) the EU would have been satisfied but the market would in all likelyhood have still overwhelming choosen the Google flavour.
I'm not sure about that. It's a waiting game. This will go on for many, many years. The whole of Europe will have changed (hopefully for the better) by then and in the meantime, there is 10 years of revenue coming in. Unlikely any fine will create a dent in that, and plenty of time for the Google Car to come online and drive you around continually asking for your life story and offing to sell you sh*t on route.
Unfortunately I think they are very astute and EVIL!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
