Six questions you were afraid to ask about Google's antitrust case in the EU

Google has been hit with a massive $ 5 billion fine by the EU this week for Android antitrust violations, with the European Commission claiming that Google took advantage of Android to impose its own services – Google Search, Chrome, and the game Store – on consumers and device manufacturers.

It's a confusing case, so I took a few minutes to try to balance things out and answer some of the bigger questions about what's going on. This could awaken memories of Microsoft's hideous anti-trust battle with the US government, but there are some differences between the two. Here is what happens with Google and the EU:

1. What's wrong with Google here?

In short, the European Commission found that Google unfairly used Android (which Google owns and develops) to push Google Search (which constitutes the bulk of Google's activity) on users, giving them a unfair and uncompetitive advantage.

Precisely, it calls three things:

• Google requires that device manufacturers include Search and Chrome in order to access the Play Store and other Google apps and services.
• Google "made payments to some major manufacturers and mobile network operators" to exclusively group the Google search application on phones in favor of other search engines.
• Google would have blocked phone makers from creating devices that run split versions of Android. In other words, to obtain Google's applications – including the Play Store and Google search – phone manufacturers had to agree not to develop or sell devices running on an Android fork ( like the fire of Amazon OS for tablets).

2. Why does this not apply to Apple?

According to the European Commission's report, Android is different from Apple's BlackBerry or BlackBerry OS system, mostly dismantled, because it is exclusive operating systems vertically integrated. Not to be authorized by third-party device manufacturers. Essentially, Apple can not be held responsible for restricting itself to using its own applications on its own operating system.

Given that Google puts Android at the disposal of others and that it is (in the Commission's view) using these companies and their devices to further increase market dominance and mobile advertising revenues from Google Search, it's here that you have to play.

3. Can not you install anything on Android? Why is the Play Store so important?

Strictly speaking, yes – that's why Amazon's Fire and Fire TV tablets exist and run on Android, even if they do not have the Play Store or Google apps.

But according to the Commission, the Play Store is too important for Android devices: it represents more than 90% of downloaded applications on Android devices, the group claiming that the manufacturers of Devices consider this to be a "must-have" application (as long as it can not be legally installed on Android devices if it's not already included).

The Commission's concerns stem from Google's use of the Play Store as an incentive to force manufacturers to offer Google Search and Chrome, with no option of offering only the store, giving Google an unfair advantage over of research .

In other words: the device manufacturers need the Play Store to be competitive. Google only assigns the Play Store to companies that also agree to install Search (and Chrome), which makes competition more difficult for other search engines.

4. If research is the problem, why is Chrome included?

At first glance, the EU's decision not to impose Google Chrome on users seems unfair. What is the dominance of Google with Search to do with a web browser? But Chrome is an essential avenue for Google search, so Chrome is also built into the decision.

5. What do other companies think?

For the most part, nothing. The Verge contacted several Android OEMs, including Samsung, LG, OnePlus, Nokia, BlackBerry and Amazon, but received only comments from Motorola, Sony and HTC, which offered no comment on the news, with HTC adding that it "will hand over to Google on the decisions that have an impact on the wider Android operating system."

6.

Google has 90 days to comply with the European Commission, which would mean paying the $ 5 billion fine, stop forcing manufacturers to preinstall Chrome and Google Search in order to offer the Google Play Store and prevent phone makers from using split versions of Android. Google is already appealing to the result, so we'll see if that happens eventually, but if that Is the case, it could mean radical changes for the way An droid will work in the future.