Android is becoming a monopoly and that could be a problem

mercurial

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
2,693
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
Android has truly become an authority in the mobile market. A powerful operating system that costs nothing to the manufacturer and brings unlimited options to the consumer is hard to beat, a fact that is confirmed by last quarter’s marketshare reports. Google’s mobile OS has reached another milestone during Q2 2014, during which the Mountain View giant shipped 85% of all smartphones!

This comes as great news to us Android aficionados, but the rest of the market is not very happy. Google’s victory can, in part, be thanked to iOS, Windows Phone and BlackBerry losing marketshare. As with anything else, such a substantial success is bound to turn some heads, and some of those may be holding eyes you don’t want looking at you.

European authorities are said to be looking into investigating the Search Giant for its overwhelming advantage over other mobile platforms. This investigation would carry through if Android was to ship over 80% of devices within the European nations, which currently isn’t the case. Android devices account for 73% of shipped devices within said continent.

Google is walking on thin ice here. A full-blown investigation on Google’s possible monopoly could bring some serious consequences for the operating system we all love and treasure. How would this case conclude, though? We could argue Android’s monopoly is a natural succession of how great and convenient the OS is. Most of us would say Google does compete fairly.

In fact, the European market may not be so worried about how many Android smartphones are out there. Sources familiar with the matter tell Reuters European regulators are more worried about Google’s practices, inquiring they are abusing their obvious dominance in the market.

A clear example is that Google does require that manufacturers pre-install certain applications, like Maps and Search. That is, unless they want to steer clear of Google services, much like Amazon has done with its Fire smartphones and tablets.

It’s hard for other manufacturers to offer a good experience with no official support, though, especially because Google Play Store accessibility requires that manufacturers follow certain standards (including the addition of said apps). Certain software updates also demand these pre-requisites.

Is Google taking advantage of its position? Some may believe they are, but we must also remember this is why Google created Android as a free, open ecosystem. They wanted to bring their services to as many users as possible, and offering Android as a free alternative proved to be a successful way to do so.
Click to expand...

Source
 
It's open source, so doubt it can be a monopoly
 
The article puts too much attention towards Google themselves as Android is an initiative to develop open standard(s) on mobile devices, a consortium called the Open Handset Alliance (OHA). This open-source licensing is entered into a competition against entities like iOS, (Apple) Windows Phone (MS) and BlackBerry, and Tizen which is an initiative by Technical Steering Group (TSG).

Google and Samsung already bumped heads in the past (and probably still), “who is the controlling the market?”, which pushed Tizen into an accelerated development.

The vendors, respectively, are dominating the market and by choosing the Android OS (and its ecosystem). The article state:

Google’s mobile OS has reached another milestone during Q2 2014, during which the Mountain View giant shipped 85% of all smartphones!
Click to expand...

E.g. Tizen is a probable market change due to larger numbers Samsung is shipping. I can also relate Windows Mobile and iOS being more eco open.
 
We could argue Android’s monopoly is a natural succession of how great and convenient the OS is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that Android isn't a monopoly .. yet
 
Oj0 said:
**** off, it's a free market. If you can't compete, how is that Google's problem?
Click to expand...

It isn't entirely a free market; for instance, it's subject to antimonopolist law as monopolies threaten a free market. The same happened to Microsoft in the 90s in Europe.

It's open source, so doubt it can be a monopoly
Click to expand...
It's a multimillion Euro business that's dominated by Google. Punting the open source mantra isn't a very effective argument in this case I'd imagine.

I have a hard time visualising how anybody would go about breaking up Android if it were found to be monopolistic though. It seems like some protectionism is at play here.
 
Ohh cmon, this is an open system which is providing a good experience to end users now whose fault is it that it's doing good. Compete or go home
 
Give users what they want, and all of a sudden you are the monopoly?

Make your OS a one glove fits all, leaving device manufacturers to just design hardware and leave their own horribly produced software out of the equation?

No one complains that Apple has the monopoly on Apple products, with their closed off OS and hardware production. No one complains that they cannot build a phone or tablet based on Apple's OS.

As others have said, compete or go home. Free market and all that. If your competition is slaughtering you, change the way you do business.
 
StevenC said:
Give users what they want, and all of a sudden you are the monopoly?

Make your OS a one glove fits all, leaving device manufacturers to just design hardware and leave their own horribly produced software out of the equation?

No one complains that Apple has the monopoly on Apple products, with their closed off OS and hardware production. No one complains that they cannot build a phone or tablet based on Apple's OS.

As others have said, compete or go home. Free market and all that. If your competition is slaughtering you, change the way you do business.
Click to expand...

+10 very well said sir.

And just a quick one. How can open source freeware such as Android become a monopoly? o.O
 
StevenC said:
Give users what they want, and all of a sudden you are the monopoly?

Make your OS a one glove fits all, leaving device manufacturers to just design hardware and leave their own horribly produced software out of the equation?

No one complains that Apple has the monopoly on Apple products, with their closed off OS and hardware production. No one complains that they cannot build a phone or tablet based on Apple's OS.

As others have said, compete or go home. Free market and all that. If your competition is slaughtering you, change the way you do business.
Click to expand...

The article have hardly anything to do with the competition complaining about each other. This are European regulators concerned with what Google is doing with their dominance, as mentioned in the article:

In fact, the European market may not be so worried about how many Android smartphones are out there. Sources familiar with the matter tell Reuters European regulators are more worried about Google’s practices, inquiring they are abusing their obvious dominance in the market.
Click to expand...

Google practices are a big concern in European countries, especially privacy matters.
 
This article puts the "monopoly" in perspective:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/31/5...ntitrust-investigation-in-europe-says-reuters

The European Commission is preparing an antitrust case against Google's Android platform, sources have told Reuters. Regulators have allegedly sent questionnaires to telecom companies and phone manufacturers, trying to get a sense of whether Google is strong-arming them into promoting its own services at the expense of competitors. One question is said to ask whether Google had ever said "that it was not in favor of your undertaking manufacturing, marketing, or launching a smart mobile device with your own or a third-party application or service pre-installed or set as default." Other questions asked for information about how revenue was shared with Google and whether other app stores had difficulty competing with Google Play, and companies were asked to provide any emails, presentation notes, and other records related to its Google dealings.

Google has been the subject of a long-running European antitrust suit over its search practices. In early 2014, it attempted to settle, offering to display search results from competitors alongside results that promoted its other services. The EU is reportedly still considering whether to accept the deal or broaden its terms before a final decision in September, Bloomberg reported last week. According to a Bloomberg source, regulators had not yet decided whether to bring an antitrust case over Android at that time. Now, a Reuters source calls the Android suit a "political game" meant to appease people who believe the European Commission has let Google off too lightly on monopolistic Search behavior. As of earlier this year, the compromise didn't require Google to admit that it had violated antitrust rules, and it's provoked complaint from companies like Microsoft, which called it a "non-starter." By going after a second service, European regulators can continue an attempt to rein in Google's power while settling a fight that's dragged on since 2010.

Google's Android platform is free for anyone to use, and it's often released with significant changes: Samsung and Amazon in particular are both known for departing heavily from the stock operating system. But a Reuters source says that if companies want timely updates, they must sign a contract agreeing to pre-install a minimum number of Google apps for things like mapping, email, calendars, music, and chat. In a complaint filed last year, Microsoft, Nokia, and others alleged something similar: if phone makers want to license popular apps like Maps, YouTube, or the nigh-ubiquitous Play Store, they said, they have to prominently feature the rest of Google's app selection as well.

It's not clear exactly what steps regulators might take if they decide Google is violating antitrust law. The investigation, if it happens, is expected to open when they make a call on the Search settlement. Google, however, is already dealing with the fallout of another legal fight that targets its privacy practices. After a court decided that people deserved the "right to be forgotten," it's begun removing search results at the behest of users who feel that "irrelevant and outdated" information is being unfairly linked to their name. This has, unsurprisingly, raised questions over censorship and whether Google is capable of distinguishing between reasonable requests and attempts to purge news that a politician or celebrity doesn't want online. Google is also only one of the American countries that have run afoul of stricter European policies about antitrust, privacy, and work practices: Microsoft, perhaps Google's biggest critic, was fined hundreds of millions of dollars for monopolistic practices in 2013.
Click to expand...
 
cerebus said:
It's a multimillion Euro business that's dominated by Google. Punting the open source mantra isn't a very effective argument in this case I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

Is Amazon's offering not a great example of exactly why the fact that Android is open source is significant? Other players can compete precisely for this reason - they are free to use the Android source. They do not have to build everything from scratch. Instead they can spend their resources to make Android better and adapt to fit their own vision.

A clear example is that Google does require that manufacturers pre-install certain applications, like Maps and Search. That is, unless they want to steer clear of Google services, much like Amazon has done with its Fire smartphones and tablets.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the Google Play store is the property of, and actively operated by Google. Anyone is free to use Android without a single Google app / Play store. Anyone is free to start their own app store, and I would imagine that Android developers would be able to also sell their existing apps in different app stores.

I just don't see how Google is doing anything anti-competitive in this case. Unless you define success in the market as being anti-competitive, that is.

Edit:

Now this changes things a bit

Google's Android platform is free for anyone to use, and it's often released with significant changes: Samsung and Amazon in particular are both known for departing heavily from the stock operating system. But a Reuters source says that if companies want timely updates, they must sign a contract agreeing to pre-install a minimum number of Google apps for things like mapping, email, calendars, music, and chat. In a complaint filed last year, Microsoft, Nokia, and others alleged something similar: if phone makers want to license popular apps like Maps, YouTube, or the nigh-ubiquitous Play Store, they said, they have to prominently feature the rest of Google's app selection as well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm not liking how Android is restricting it's file system. You shouldn't need to root the device in order to use it to it's fullest.
 
Fudzy said:
I'm not liking how Android is restricting it's file system. You shouldn't need to root the device in order to use it to it's fullest.
Click to expand...

That's just to protect the user from him/herself and apps with less than noble intentions. Power users need to remember they are an extremely small minority.
 
Viva said:
That's just to protect the user from him/herself and apps with less than noble intentions. Power users need to remember they are an extremely small minority.
Click to expand...

I guess but they should still give us the ability to choose,
 
Already I can plug my Note II (Old phone now) into HDMI out to an external monitor with keyboard and mouse.

As soon as Android makes that a more convenient experience, say with hybrid tablets even, why have Windows?

Pity I play Eve Online :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X