The EU's antitrust decision on Android ignores 3 critical points

Google is abusing its power as a gatekeeper for Android? Antitrust regulators in Europe seem to think so – but rereading their decision, I can not help but be struck by some inconsistencies between their ratings and the realities of Google's mobile platform.

In case you had a nap for the past few days, the European Union slapped Google with a $ 5 billion fine as part of an antitrust investigation. The EU says Google is stifling competition by forcing phone makers to pre-install Chrome and Google Search on their Android devices as part of a broader set of Google services – and preventing partners from developing new apps. devices based on unofficial "forks". fortunately, are still allowed). Google has already announced its intention to appeal.

Now, I am certainly not a lawyer – I do not even play it on television – but from a strictly logical point of view, some thorny issues catch my eye. Take a few minutes to think with them, is not it?

1. Android device manufacturers can install their own browsers on devices

A key element of the EU's objection is the fact that Google requires manufacturers to ship Chrome on their devices s & ## They also want to include access to the Play Store and other Google services (which most manufacturers obviously do).

Decision:

Pre-installation may create a status quo bias. Users who find pre-installed search and navigation apps on their devices are likely to stick to these apps.

The EU adds that the combination of Google Chrome with its set of services has reduced incentives for manufacturers to pre-install competing applications. as well as "user incentives to download" alternative browsers.

Okay, Mr. Bigglesby. But what about the fact that Samsung – the world's largest phone maker, Android or other – pre-installs its own browser Samsung Internet, on its Android devices?

Chrome is also present on these phones. Of course, but Samsung Internet is usually the most important option. It is usually placed in the Dock area of ​​the Home screen, unlike Chrome, and it is configured as the default browser for opening links from third-party applications in the less certain configurations. The user's manual of the Galaxy S9 describes it as the "main browser" of the device and tells users to find the icon on the screen and the home screen. 39; support whenever they want to browse the Web (thanks for such clever instructions!). Decision – Browser Samsung "width =" 700 "height =" 356 "data-imageid =" 100764736 "/> AT & T

Regarding incentives for users to download other applications – well, the Firefox Android app has more than 100 million downloads, Opera and Opera Mini have 100 million each, the Samsung browser is listed in the Play Store as having 500 million installations, and the UC browser Cross-platform has 500 million Android installs (with another 100 million for its Mini version) .Numerous other niche level browsers are also present in the Play Store, many with dozens of millions of downloads of their names.

That being said, just like on the browser, Android device manufacturers can certainly preinstall and highlight the alternative auxiliary services. Samsung is once again an easy example: on the company's recent phones, its Bixby service is by far the most important search interface and virtual badistant (often an embarrbading degree ]). Bixby, not Google Assistant, has his own dedicated hardware button. Bixby, not Google Assistant, is present as a dedicated panel to the left of the main home screen. And Bixby, not Google Assistant, should be accessible at any time via voice command.

Ironically, Bixby's focus on Google's service is almost universally regarded as one of the weak points of Samsung's mobile offerings. . But that's another story for another day.

3. The solution proposed by the EU does not make much sense for Google – or for users

Let's get down to a global perspective: Any business is free to use open source Android code without paying Google or accepting terms, just as Amazon does with its Fire. What this whole debate boils down to is Google's agreement for what it calls Google Mobile Services – an "app owner suite" that includes Google Play with Gmail, Maps, YouTube, and D & # s 39 other basic Google products. You can consider this as a technically distinct layer of Android itself, but a closely related part of what most of us would consider as "the Android experience".

This layer is the part of Android that actually makes money Google. users connected to its ecosystem and allows the company to collect data and ultimately display ads (which, still today, is the heart and soul of the company) Google activity). The layer includes not only front-end Google services, but also a number of behind-the-scenes utilities, such as Google Play Services, which powers Google Play Protect and helps secure and update devices. Android on a number of a commercial point of view, how could it be logical that Google maintain not only Android itself, but also this layer of extra value – the layer that really makes the Android experience what is it – and then provide all to third-party device manufacturers without getting the main benefit that Android brings back? The EU is actually asking Google to let hardware manufacturers take their cake and eat it too.

From a user's point of view, we saw that Android looks like a wild and wild jeep from the West and the West. is not pretty. In the early days of the platform, before Google baderted so much control over what manufacturers and carriers could do, the first Samsung Galaxy S phone was turned into an unrecognizable mess by Verizon. The carrier renamed the phone as "Samsung Fascinate" and made its own shitty services as "VZ Navigator" preinstalled faults, with Google equivalents not found, and even went as far as locking Bing as the the phone's default search provider – without an easy way to change it. The user experience was odious, to put it mildly, and recommended for virtually no one.

Google's standards now allow Android to remain open and flexible while maintaining a certain level of ecosystem-wide consistency and quality control. Wizard, specifically – with its various features and integrations – has become a defining part of Android and a common thread that connects devices in a much wider ecosystem. The omission of phones would primarily serve to create inconsistencies, confusion and subpar user experiences. And Wizard is just a piece of a much bigger puzzle. Does anyone (other than carriers) really want to see more "Samsung Fascinate" fiascos?

Now, all this does not mean that the situation is completely black and white. At first glance, the part of the EU's complaint that Google is preventing its partners from selling devices with alternative implementations of Android while selling Google-approved Android products seems to be a concern legitimate in the face of potential abuse of power. And there might be some legitimacy to an intermediate notion, for example, providing a more explicit prompt that indicates the possibility of browser choice or search when initially setting up a device ("For your web browser by default, do you want to use the Google Chrome app, the Samsung Internet application or other options in the Play Store? ").

But to suggest that Google limits the possibilities of manufacturers to offer competing services or eliminate incentives for users to search for these options seem very much at odds with reality. And suggest that users would ultimately benefit from less consistency and control over the platform seems to ignore the lessons of Android's past.

You do not have to be a lawyer to see the logic in that.

Sign up for JR's weekly newsletter to get more practical advice, personal recommendations and a purely Anglophone perspective on important news.

[Android Intelligence videos at Computerworld]