Off topic, but I am curious. To any Russian readers, how does Yandex hold up to Google for Russian users? Does it provide an experience better than Google in some way? Do people use it simply because it is domestic? Is it similar to Baidu in that it is a means of controlling the flow of information?
It does give better results when it comes to digging stuff up.
If you take time factor into the account, it often falls behind on finding relevant news.
To sum up, Yandex is a very good search engine for people who only search in Russian within Russia.
As far as i know Google beats Yandex in search (readed about this here http://habrahabr.ru/post/173351/). But Yandex got more detailed maps (google missed some objects / buildings). Yandex got Taxi app, public transport app, navigator, metrika (google analytics copy) and etc, etc, etc. For me as developer - yandex provides much better api documentation and examples.
But I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being monopolists itself? Example - Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data (bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow. I am sure, that Google can protest them back. How Yandex had the nerve for this? Nothing personal, business only?
P.S. All above is about Russia context. In USA I don't know which maps are more detailed.
Yandex.Transport bought an access to API for positioning, but it's not exclusive. Everyone, including you can buy this access too, it's not very expensive.
Yandex Search is couple of years older than Google, and specializes in Russian market from the beginning. It provided much more relevant results for quite a few years.
Some services mirror Google's while being tailored to Russia/CIS audience: mail, yandex.direct=adwords, chrome-based yandex browser, maps, news, social stuff, cloud storage. Some services, like yandex market or rabota (job search), have no Google counterparts.
Also, their support is more responsive. So no, it's nothing like Baidu and more like Intel vs AMD.
Yandex.Market kinda corresponds to Google Shopping. http://www.google.com/shopping Curiously enough, Google doesn't provide Shopping in Russia: there's no 'Shopping' tab when searching through google.ru, and when browsing via Russian IP, google.com does redirect through google.ru.
You can switch by clicking a link at the bottom, "Use Google.com".
As for shopping, interestingly, it works here: "Online stores shipping to Moscow, Russia", but it's quite simplistic. Yandex.Market is more like Amazon if you look at its parametric search and filters.
I can switch, but for that I need to go explicitly to goole.com (it redirects to .ru), click "Use Google.com" and search. As opposed to searching right from the browser address bar.
Shopping works if you use google.com, but if you use google.ru - it isn't there.
Yandex.Market has a great API that lets shops integrate with it. Some shops even manage to exist without having their own websites. They just sell through Yandex.Market. Google Shopping does not even come close.
Yandex market is awesome. It has a very detailed database of products, and lets you filter them by tons of tech specs and actually explains what they are. I use it all the time to find products in categories that I don't know much about. Amazon, Google shopping or whatever don't even come close.
First of all, yandex is a very old search engine (launched in 1997). For a very long time yandex was way better for search queries in Russian which was obviously a deal breaker for domestic users. Like google and yahoo, they have a full suite of internet services (mail, search, news, virtual currency, etc), so you wouldn't gain much by switching.
Yandex also possesses some unique domestic services that google doesn't have (market, taxi, traffic jams).
I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. I expect we'll see more suits like this, plus some about bundling of Chrome, and even about making Google the default search engine in Chrome.
What I can't understand from this is why would there be a lawsuit about the default search engine in a browser built by a search engine company?
If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.
Android is still an O/S built by a search engine company. If a phone manufacturer isn't making a build specific to their device and using the 'vanilla' version provided by Google then it is the device maker limiting free choice of search engine by using a limited O/S. Google should not be forced to cater for lazy manucfacturers.
Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.
> Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing.
No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer, whether you like it or not, being tame compared to Google's voracity for the same behavior, forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices.
They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services.
Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API.
And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year.
(Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
> Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer
The actual basis was illegal protecting their existing desktop PC OS monopoly by tying, and illegally extending their existing desktop PC OS monopoly to the browser market by tying. Both the existing monopoly context and the purpose were important parts of what made the tying problematic.
And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market to try to grow monopolies over other major online industries like movies and music by requiring those apps be shipped aboard.
> And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market
Are you asserting:
(1) That the market for apps sold via the Play Store is a "market" as that term is used in antitrust analysis, and one over which Google has a monopoly, or that
(2) The Play Store itself, as a product, represents a Google monopoly within some market as that term is used in antitrust analysis (And, if #2, what "market")?
Yes, one spelling issue. Sorry, the MADA isn't discussed frequently (because Google's pretty good at keeping it out of the public eye), so I spelled it wrong.
The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[2] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[3] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."[4] Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services are involved; (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.[5]
> Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements
It seems loosely correct.
> provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
I'd love to see your analysis supporting the claim that condition 3 ("the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product") is true, including your definition of the relevant market and your analysis establishing that it is a relevant market under antitrust law.
> Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE.
Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows in response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on desktop OS's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly, and simultaneously for attempting to monopolize the internet browser market by leveraging their existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got in trouble.
They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.
If MS hadn't explicitly said things like "We're going to cut off their air supply" in reference to the bundling, they might even have gotten away with it.
>I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this.
Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware.
EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies.
I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.
There's also something to be said about the margins realized by being a monopoly. There's a reason you see fewer companies in cut-throat industries doing stuff like Microsoft Research or Google X. Research is expensive and that means you need big profits to support it and having a monopoly is a great way to guarantee big profits.
So they want to quietly hijack the setting, the way all the fucking windows crap does, to redirect the traffic, and when it fails they complained about unfairness?
How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors and developers first?
> Is it a news that corporations are creating "ecosystems" to make money, not to benefit third-parties?
Corporations do their job to make money of course, but it's better to limit harm they can create when making money. Regulations are productive in many ways including regulation of possibility to destroy or significantly limit competitors and competition.
> What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?
Nothing wrong with it. The problem is that ecosystem owner can significantly limit competitors.
> Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.
Strictly speaking yes, it isn't monopoly, but it is close enough to it, so it can use his position to harm competition.
How, how does "significantly limit competitors" relate to the requirement to make an explicit, conscious choice by the user instead of allowing a quiet change of device settings?
Not allowing any third-party search apps or not allowing to change the default app by the user could be considered as a "significant limit", but there is no such restrictions.
Competition can be limited not only in "hard" way (like not allowing any third-party apps), but also in many "soft" ways.
Google uses his position to set default options for apps and this mean he gets all "unconscious" (and too lazy) users. This is unfair (not backed by any real superiority of his apps) advantage. Yandex tries to change default options for some vendors and Google again uses his position to limit it (limit competition). I'm totally for users making conscious choice, but with status quo it is unconscious choice and skewed in the way that gives Google unfair advantage.
In generally this Yandex vs Google reminds me AMD vs Intel case [1] when Intel used his better position to limit competitor without having real superiority.
I don't think so. Yandex is very neutral company in that regard. They have Ukrainian office with developers. For Ukrainian users they show Crimea belonging to the Ukraine when browsing from maps.yandex.ua. You can check it yourself, compare maps.yandex.ua and maps.yandex.ru.
Currently I'm in a country that didn't recognize Kosovo independence and Google shows it as disputed territory, otherwise part of Serbia. Exactly the same way for Crimea and Ukraine.
It is neither of these companies job to take sides. The simplest way is to show to each party what they want to see.
Silently legitimizing the gains made in a war of naked territorial aggression (in order to maintain market share, most likely) doesn't require a lot of balls, in my book.
No big company in Russia is "neutral." They don't have those business freedoms. Kaspersky is a good example of how deeply tied Russian companies are to its security and political apparatus:
Most/all map vendors follow local politics in regards to territory disputes. I'm not sure why you think that's unusually generous of them. If anything, the Russians know that keeping UA under their thumb and using their services instead of western services is to their advantage. A more apolitical move would be having it listed as disputed on both maps.
What are they talking about, exactly? It's perfectly possible to "unbundle" Android and Google's services. Google goes furthest in unbundling possibilities for any popular operating system, since they give away the source code for the operating system to be freely modified and be bundled with other cloud services. Amazon, Microsoft+Nokia (Bing) and many Chinese smartphone vendors (Baidu mostly) have all shown that this is possible. People pretend that Android without Google Play Services is somehow worthless or necessarily incomplete, which I don't agree with in the slightest.
It seems to me that what they're talking about is actually that Google's cloud services package bundles default Google Search, and Google does not provide the user or vendors with enough flexibility here. Okay, I'll definitely grant them that. So they want to use Google's cloud infrastructure selectively for the Play Store, but not for other profitable and integrated cloud services? Sounds a bit like eating your cake and having it too. If you look at this way, it doesn't seem such a reasonable request, although I guess it would be better for the market if Google was forced to give in.
It's not Yandex that wants the play store, it's the device manufacturers. Google is using it's position as the leading android store to prevent competition in other areas. I think it's bad for the market, bad for privacy, bad for other companies and ultimately bad for the consumers.
The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps. This makes it a real pain to run popular Android apps on Blackberry, for example. So in practice, very few users do.
Edit: Warning - lots of downvotes in this thread, seemingly for any Google critical comments.
> The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps.
I think this is an exaggeration. Some developers make too many assumptions, sure, but I don't think you'll find many high-profile non-Google apps that don't run on a Kindle Fire tablet for this reason.
EDIT: People seem to think that Google Services contain the bread and butter of the Android OS, but if you look at what APIs are actually provided by them [1], it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud services.
The high profile ones have a properly adjusted version in Amazon's store. When I got my Kindle Fire in 2013, I ran into a lot of apps in Amazon's store that refused to run or broke in weird ways for lack of Google's APIs.
I don't know if it's improved any since I gave up on low profile apps when using my Kindle.
I think you misinterpreted some of Google's documentation here, or are deliberately FUD'ing. You made me look around in Android's documentation and the web and I did not find anything about this. Care to share a link?
I my experience, this is not an exaggeration. Most of the top popularity apps expect the Google Play APIs to be present. Have you had the experience that this is no longer the case?
1) How many apps will flat out refuse to run if Google Services are not present, as opposed to have reduced functionality? Having a dependency on Google's Services library only means that the app will use it if it is available, not that the app will fail if it's not.
2) How many apps use more than the Location / Maps / In-app Purchases API, which are implemented in a compatible way by all of the other parties I mentioned?
> it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud services
What about the Chromecast and Android Wear APIs?
I know that Chromecast OS and Android Wear they are both (sadly) based on closed operating systems and somewhat rely on Google APIs, but that shouldn't be an excuse to prevent people that don't want Google Services on their phone from using smartwatches over bluetooth or mirroring the screen to their TV in their own local network.
> What about the Chromecast and Android Wear APIs?
The Chromecast does not operate over a local connection. It is actually operated 'through the cloud' - if you are controlling your Chromecast, you're sending operations to your Google account over the internet, which are then relayed to your Chromecast which is also tied to your Google account. Note that Google supports a non-cloud dependent sort-of-alternative for Chromecasting called Miracast in AOSP.
Android Wear is heavily dependent on Google Now, Google Search's voice recognition techniques. An Android Wear device cannot do anything without access to Google's services - it is far more than 'somewhat dependent'.
So yeah, both are in Google Services because they actually fully depend on Google's services.
Documentation for Miracast in Android seems very lacking. According to Wikipedia, Google decided not to support Miracast on the Chromecast, probably because it is an open standard that would have made the effect of selling the Chromecast cheaply weaker on their goal of raising Android adoption and locking in customers.
I don't think that all commands are relayed over Google, since if that were true, Android should be clever enough find my Chromecast if I was connected to another WiFi network. The delay would also make it impractical for quite a lot of people. IMO chromecast should have been based on open standards.
Android Wear would be just be as heavily "reliant" on Google Now as Android is. Google just decided to give it a proprietary version of Android that is heavily integrated with Google Now.
Android Wear could do quite a lot without access to Google Services. It is actually pretty pleasant to use without talking to your watch.
It seems like we both have different points of view on this, but in my opinion Google has acted in a way that favours their interests over their customers' freedom.
While the GoogleCast API’s are part of Play services, the rest isn’t true. Communication between a GoogleCast device and your phone takes place mostly locally.
Communication with Chromecast happens directly over Wifi and does not involve Google services. Chromecast uses the DIAL or mDNS protocol to discover apps on the local network. Some apps like Netflix can use DIAL protocol to control app on other devices, like Tivo or smart TVs, on the local network.
Chromecast does have a new guest mode that allows guests to control Chromecast without connecting to Wifi network. Those commands presumably are relayed through Google servers. But it isn't turned on by default.
Chromecast does need to be connected to the Internet to download the receiver app that runs on the Chromecast. If the Chromecast could cache the app, or get it from the controlling app, it could run completely disconnected from the Internet.
For clarification, to initiate a ChromeCast session it talks to google, but the sender and receiver then establish a local websocket connection for local control.
It seems like Google is intentionally encouraging developers to switch to their closed APIs. Most developers will probably follow what the red warning message says instead of spending more time building another solution.
Google wants to keep control of all Android clone OSs, so they add convenience features to their closed-source libraries, encourage developers to use them, and force phone manufacturers to bundle them with their OS.
Bundling an alternative implementation of the API is probably a bad idea because of copyright.
They deprecated a mapping API in AOSP because AOSP is not tied to a cloud service and should not depend on cloud services. AOSP on its own cannot assume that a mapping service is available, and neither can Android apps. For the same reason, there are no app store, social networking or cloud storage APIs in AOSP. AOSP does not depend on a cloud service.
They introduced a mapping API for Google Maps in Play Services because Play Services contains all client libraries for Google's services. The Google Services APIs are a container for all libraries to consume Google's cloud services.
Probably because Google got a lot of negative PR for forcing manufactures away from more accurate Location API implementations so now they need to use a private API as an excuse to kill location service competition in the future.
It is possible to unbundle Android, but if you are a phone manufacturer that makes Google Android phones, you get very strong pressure from Google if you try to also make non-Google Android phones.
So any large manufacturer can not try new innovative Android variants at fear of being cut off from Google Android.
And no, that incident had nothing to do with whether or not Google apps available in Aliyun's store were pirated. Acer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
Presumably (judging by comments on Russian websites), Yandex has got an agreement to include (or included) in the report documents that show you have to play by Google's rules and install Google services on every model in every region of the world once you signed the service agreement, or (even better for them) direct prohibition to pre-install Yandex services.
Yes, I know that has been discussed, but there is no article (and not even in the Ars one) were it is said that an OEM is forbidden to launch a non Google Android device like the op is repeatedly claiming
The MARA agreement Google mandates is very anti-competitive. It protects some services by mandating their inclusion in order to get others. Google now mandates almost 20 apps be packaged on devices, when the manufacturer really only wants the Play Store.
If that is anti-competitive, then Apples locked down operating-system running only entirely Apple sanctioned code must make the FTC explode.
Then of course, the market is smartphones, not Android phones. If something is anti-competitive comes down to the market situation, and has usually very little to do with any specific behavior.
This complaint is a narrow one: It is focused on the requirement to make Google's apps the default apps. In that it is similar to the Microsoft case where Microsoft was forced to provide a selection of browsers on installation. So it isn't as ridiculous as some here have claimed, and it is possible Google and/or the OEMs selling in Russia will be forced to make some accommodation or exit the market.
This wasn't always a requirement if you remember that terrible Verizon phone with Bing as the default (and impossible to change) search engine.
The question is whether Yandex can make a case for Android as a monopoly, and whether the choice of making an AOSP-based Android variant with a Yandex ecosystem isn't enough relief from such a supposed monopoly.
While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here in the US
Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if Yandex were to prove its case against Android.
The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?
It is the case the grandparent is referencing with IE bundling in Windows. It reapplies the antitrust laws to monopolies selling bits.
If Google is found to have a monopoly in market X and uses that control to gain control of market Y by forcing out competitors without really competing, that is the type of monopoly that's being targeted. This is what the grandparent is talking about. It is different from a simple monopoly the parent refers to.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing or attaining the status in certain ways are. Walled gardens can certainly be considered a form of monopoly, but that means nothing in the eyes of the law unless they use abuse their monopoly status.
Anyone is welcome to use AOSP.
Amazon has it's own, non-play, based apps.
Even on a non-blessed system you can get and install the core Google APKs and have access to the play store.
I think the walled garden approach that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all ascribe to is definitely anti-competitive at it's core, and I truly hope more governments will start addressing it as such.
Google Play/Apps. They're pushing more and more apps to be dependent on "Play Services", which is a monolithic Google cloud data platform. It ensures a large percentage of appealing apps are dependent on Google's platform, rather than the open source Android OS. Furthermore, the use of the MARA contract forbids OEMs from introducing any viable competitors into the market.
MADA restrictions mandate Google Search be the default search provider, and that the long press on the center button goes to Google Search. And that over 20 apps must be preinstalled with a Google folder on the home screen with many of them in it. Ensuring every device must be sold with very prominent advertising of Google services.
This creates a very chilling effect on the ability for competitors to land on the platform, as at best, they'll be an unwanted second service on the device.
Last year, Yandex had to fight against government attention to its news aggregating service (that has a significant share of user traffic and ranges sources automatically by quality instead of closeness to official propaganda). Rumor has it (and I may be totally making things up) that Google conveyed an idea or two to the originators of the those censorship law proposals that were supposed to make Yandex manually filter “extremism” from news pages. Because Google doesn't have Russian offices anymore, idiotic government initiatives harm it much less than they harm Yandex.
122 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadBut I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being monopolists itself? Example - Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data (bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow. I am sure, that Google can protest them back. How Yandex had the nerve for this? Nothing personal, business only?
P.S. All above is about Russia context. In USA I don't know which maps are more detailed.
All Yandex services: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...
All Google services: http://www.google.com/about/products/
Putin.
Moscow officials state that it is not the case, they're not limiting their APIs to Yandex only. Yandex is merely the first one to gain access.
Some services mirror Google's while being tailored to Russia/CIS audience: mail, yandex.direct=adwords, chrome-based yandex browser, maps, news, social stuff, cloud storage. Some services, like yandex market or rabota (job search), have no Google counterparts.
Also, their support is more responsive. So no, it's nothing like Baidu and more like Intel vs AMD.
While we are on AdWords/Yandex.Direct, is there any alternative to Wordstat from Google? http://wordstat.yandex.com/#!/?words=iPhone
As for shopping, interestingly, it works here: "Online stores shipping to Moscow, Russia", but it's quite simplistic. Yandex.Market is more like Amazon if you look at its parametric search and filters.
Shopping works if you use google.com, but if you use google.ru - it isn't there.
Yandex also possesses some unique domestic services that google doesn't have (market, taxi, traffic jams).
If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.
Maybe you downloaded some software that also bundled Chrome by default: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-real...
Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.
It says a lot of the rest of your message
I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.
No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services.
Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API.
And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year.
(Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
The actual basis was illegal protecting their existing desktop PC OS monopoly by tying, and illegally extending their existing desktop PC OS monopoly to the browser market by tying. Both the existing monopoly context and the purpose were important parts of what made the tying problematic.
Are you asserting: (1) That the market for apps sold via the Play Store is a "market" as that term is used in antitrust analysis, and one over which Google has a monopoly, or that (2) The Play Store itself, as a product, represents a Google monopoly within some market as that term is used in antitrust analysis (And, if #2, what "market")?
I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices
By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA. Perhaps, instead of crying for downvoting you have to inform better.
The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
If it violates so many laws it will be easy to provide at least one proof of that claim, isn't?
Can you cite the specific provision of U.S. law that it violates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29
Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements, provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
It seems loosely correct.
> provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
I'd love to see your analysis supporting the claim that condition 3 ("the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product") is true, including your definition of the relevant market and your analysis establishing that it is a relevant market under antitrust law.
Yes, the case was bigger than just that, but now you are just nitpicking my comment.
Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows in response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on desktop OS's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly, and simultaneously for attempting to monopolize the internet browser market by leveraging their existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got in trouble.
They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.
Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware.
EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies.
I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.
Bill Gates is Frodo. Larry Page is Bilbo.
Well that certainly doesn't bode well for what the next five years look like...
Edit: Assumed you'd put them in chronological order. Bill Gates as Bilbo and Larry Page as Frodo is terrifying.
How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors and developers first?
I think it would be better for society if smaller companies will be able compete with monopoly without requirement to spend billions.
What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?
Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.
Corporations do their job to make money of course, but it's better to limit harm they can create when making money. Regulations are productive in many ways including regulation of possibility to destroy or significantly limit competitors and competition.
> What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?
Nothing wrong with it. The problem is that ecosystem owner can significantly limit competitors.
> Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.
Strictly speaking yes, it isn't monopoly, but it is close enough to it, so it can use his position to harm competition.
How, how does "significantly limit competitors" relate to the requirement to make an explicit, conscious choice by the user instead of allowing a quiet change of device settings?
Not allowing any third-party search apps or not allowing to change the default app by the user could be considered as a "significant limit", but there is no such restrictions.
Google uses his position to set default options for apps and this mean he gets all "unconscious" (and too lazy) users. This is unfair (not backed by any real superiority of his apps) advantage. Yandex tries to change default options for some vendors and Google again uses his position to limit it (limit competition). I'm totally for users making conscious choice, but with status quo it is unconscious choice and skewed in the way that gives Google unfair advantage.
In generally this Yandex vs Google reminds me AMD vs Intel case [1] when Intel used his better position to limit competitor without having real superiority.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.....
I am sorry, but Yandex is by no means AMD. It is ridiculous to suggest that Yandex "is second only to Google".
Currently I'm in a country that didn't recognize Kosovo independence and Google shows it as disputed territory, otherwise part of Serbia. Exactly the same way for Crimea and Ukraine.
It is neither of these companies job to take sides. The simplest way is to show to each party what they want to see.
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/all/
>maps.yandex.ua
Most/all map vendors follow local politics in regards to territory disputes. I'm not sure why you think that's unusually generous of them. If anything, the Russians know that keeping UA under their thumb and using their services instead of western services is to their advantage. A more apolitical move would be having it listed as disputed on both maps.
It seems to me that what they're talking about is actually that Google's cloud services package bundles default Google Search, and Google does not provide the user or vendors with enough flexibility here. Okay, I'll definitely grant them that. So they want to use Google's cloud infrastructure selectively for the Play Store, but not for other profitable and integrated cloud services? Sounds a bit like eating your cake and having it too. If you look at this way, it doesn't seem such a reasonable request, although I guess it would be better for the market if Google was forced to give in.
Edit: Warning - lots of downvotes in this thread, seemingly for any Google critical comments.
I think this is an exaggeration. Some developers make too many assumptions, sure, but I don't think you'll find many high-profile non-Google apps that don't run on a Kindle Fire tablet for this reason.
EDIT: People seem to think that Google Services contain the bread and butter of the Android OS, but if you look at what APIs are actually provided by them [1], it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud services.
[1]: http://developer.android.com/google/index.html
I don't know if it's improved any since I gave up on low profile apps when using my Kindle.
1) How many apps will flat out refuse to run if Google Services are not present, as opposed to have reduced functionality? Having a dependency on Google's Services library only means that the app will use it if it is available, not that the app will fail if it's not.
2) How many apps use more than the Location / Maps / In-app Purchases API, which are implemented in a compatible way by all of the other parties I mentioned?
What about the Chromecast and Android Wear APIs?
I know that Chromecast OS and Android Wear they are both (sadly) based on closed operating systems and somewhat rely on Google APIs, but that shouldn't be an excuse to prevent people that don't want Google Services on their phone from using smartwatches over bluetooth or mirroring the screen to their TV in their own local network.
The Chromecast does not operate over a local connection. It is actually operated 'through the cloud' - if you are controlling your Chromecast, you're sending operations to your Google account over the internet, which are then relayed to your Chromecast which is also tied to your Google account. Note that Google supports a non-cloud dependent sort-of-alternative for Chromecasting called Miracast in AOSP.
Android Wear is heavily dependent on Google Now, Google Search's voice recognition techniques. An Android Wear device cannot do anything without access to Google's services - it is far more than 'somewhat dependent'.
So yeah, both are in Google Services because they actually fully depend on Google's services.
Android Wear would be just be as heavily "reliant" on Google Now as Android is. Google just decided to give it a proprietary version of Android that is heavily integrated with Google Now. Android Wear could do quite a lot without access to Google Services. It is actually pretty pleasant to use without talking to your watch.
It seems like we both have different points of view on this, but in my opinion Google has acted in a way that favours their interests over their customers' freedom.
Chromecast does have a new guest mode that allows guests to control Chromecast without connecting to Wifi network. Those commands presumably are relayed through Google servers. But it isn't turned on by default.
Chromecast does need to be connected to the Internet to download the receiver app that runs on the Chromecast. If the Chromecast could cache the app, or get it from the controlling app, it could run completely disconnected from the Internet.
Perhaps the downvoting is not from Google supporters but fro now accurate information
> This API is not the recommended method for accessing Android location.
> The Google Location Services API [...] is the preferred way to add location-awareness to your app.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pack...
It seems like Google is intentionally encouraging developers to switch to their closed APIs. Most developers will probably follow what the red warning message says instead of spending more time building another solution.
Google wants to keep control of all Android clone OSs, so they add convenience features to their closed-source libraries, encourage developers to use them, and force phone manufacturers to bundle them with their OS.
Bundling an alternative implementation of the API is probably a bad idea because of copyright.
They introduced a mapping API for Google Maps in Play Services because Play Services contains all client libraries for Google's services. The Google Services APIs are a container for all libraries to consume Google's cloud services.
This is not symptomatic of Google's evilness.
That'd be a fun case; you could just use their own arguments in Oracle v. Google against them.
You can see the internal Google emails here where they note SkyHook was more accurate than their implementation http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5?...
And they force Motorola to stop shipping devices unless Motorola agrees to not use SkyHook.
The trial stated that this was not the case
So any large manufacturer can not try new innovative Android variants at fear of being cut off from Google Android.
Any source for this?
And, apart that Aliyun store had pirated Google apps, it was not an Android fork.
Still waiting those MADA clauses forbidding non Google Android
And no, that incident had nothing to do with whether or not Google apps available in Aliyun's store were pirated. Acer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
If MADA is so confidential why you talk about some clauses as facts? Or you have proofs of them or you're just inventing things
> cer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
Second time, Aliyun is not an Android fork
Why do you talk about things you clearly don't know? Are you just spreading FUD because of your hate against some companies?
Presumably (judging by comments on Russian websites), Yandex has got an agreement to include (or included) in the report documents that show you have to play by Google's rules and install Google services on every model in every region of the world once you signed the service agreement, or (even better for them) direct prohibition to pre-install Yandex services.
Please, stop talking about what you clearly don't know.
Still waiting those clauses that you post as facts. Can you link to them or not?
Then of course, the market is smartphones, not Android phones. If something is anti-competitive comes down to the market situation, and has usually very little to do with any specific behavior.
Don't often spot spelling mistakes like that on the mighty Beeb, tut tut etc.
This wasn't always a requirement if you remember that terrible Verizon phone with Bing as the default (and impossible to change) search engine.
The question is whether Yandex can make a case for Android as a monopoly, and whether the choice of making an AOSP-based Android variant with a Yandex ecosystem isn't enough relief from such a supposed monopoly.
While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here in the US
Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if Yandex were to prove its case against Android.
The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing or attaining the status in certain ways are. Walled gardens can certainly be considered a form of monopoly, but that means nothing in the eyes of the law unless they use abuse their monopoly status.
You can change almost any default program, use alternative stores or sideload applications
And still waiting any single proof of that MADA restrictions. perhaps you don't find them because you even can't spell it right.
This creates a very chilling effect on the ability for competitors to land on the platform, as at best, they'll be an unwanted second service on the device.
Do you have problems understanding what a walled garden is?