Google was hit by a massive $5 billion by the European Union this week for Android antitrust violations, with the european commission claiming that Google has been situations favorable by using Android to impose its very own services — Google search, Chrome, and the Play Store — upon every Andriod users and device manufacturers.
It’s a difficult situation, so i’ve taken a couple of minutes to address every issues here and solution to some possible questions about what’s going on. It might stir up memories about Microsoft’s antitrust conflict with the united states government however they both have their differences. Will be explaining what did go wrong between Google and the European Union(EU).
- What exactly did Google do incorrect right here?
In brief, the European Commission has ruled that Google has been unfairly imposing Andriod on it users (which is owned and developed by Google) by doing this they push Google search (which makes up most of Google’s business) on users, making them have no competition, plus advantage which is definitely unfair to other companies.
Particularly, it calls out three matters:
- Google make device manufacturer to meet up with their terms by including search and chrome in other to include Play Store and other Google apps and services.
- Google has gone to the extent to pay manufacturers and mobile network operators to include Google search app to mobile phones.
- Google has allegedly blocked phone makers from manufacturing devices that run forked version of Android meaning – Program source code that differs from a main body of code. At some point in time, the code was modified to produce a different product. Forked version sare common in open source projects because open source licenses allow the code to be modified. . For this to be possible Google made manufactures not to develop modified version of Andriod like Amazon’s fire OS for tablets.
- Why isn’t this applicable to Apple?
The European commission’s report says that it perspectives towards Android been exceptional, say, Apple’s iOS or BlackBerry’s mostly defunct BlackBerry OS considering the fact that they are unique, vertically integrated operating system that can’t be licensed by third-party manufacturers. Essentially, Apple can’t be held accountable for restricting itself on appling its owned applications on its owned Operating System.
Due to the fact that Google does make Android avalable others, and is (within the opinion of the commission) using Google services on their owned devices making Google dominating the market place and also making revenue from mobile ads.
- Can’t you put in some thing on Android? What makes Play Store so important?
Definitely you can add somethings— That is why Amazon’s Fire table and Fire TV exist without Google Play Store and Google apps or any other services.
The Play store is simply too vital
But in line with the commission, the Play Store is too important for Android: it accounts for more than 90% of apps downloaded on Android devices, with the group claiming that device producers considered it “compulsory” app (specially for the reason that it is legally hooked up on Android devices if it isn’t already included).
The commission’s concerns stem from the truth that Google is the it’s advantage as incentive to make manufacturers to use Google search and Chrome.In no doubt, device producers need the Play Store to remain in the game. Google cleverly acts made manufacturer who needs the Play Store to also agree to install search and Google Chrome, which is why other search engines can’t compete with Google.
- If search is the problem, why is Chrome included?
Take a look at this, The European Union ruled against forcing Google Chrome on users which is not appropriate and what makes their dominance with the search has to with the so called Google Chrome? What do other companies think? To be sincere nothing.
- What happens next?
Google has 90 days to comply with the EU, which means paying the $5 billion fine, stop forcing Google Search and Chrome browsers to manufacturer in other to provide them with Play Store, and any manufacturer produce modified version of the Andriod. Google is already appealing the result, so we’ll see if it ends up occurring, but if it does, it may imply drastic modifications for a way Android operates in the future.