Update: here’s the full press release. Here’s the three main violations:
In particular, Google:
- has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google’s app store (the Play Store);
- made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called “Android forks”).
Original article continues below.
Google has been hit with a record-breaking â‚¬4.3 billion ($5 billion) fine by EU regulators for breaking antitrust laws. The European Commission says Google has abused its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android, and “made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to exclusively bundle the Google Search app on handsets.
I’m okay with bundling applications, but I’m 100% opposed to large corporations like Google blocking competing companies from running forked versions of Android – allowed through Android’s licensing – and wealthy corporations basically buying dominance by sending large sums of money to in this case carriers and manufacturers that smaller companies could never afford.
That being said, I do feel like the way we determine what is and is not corporate behaviour damaging to consumers and the market needs some serious overhaul. I’ve asked this question on OSNews before, but even though Apple doesn’t have the market share to qualify as a monopoly, does anyone really want to argue that Apple – which sucks up virtually all of the profits in the handset market, despite its small marketshare – does not have power and influence over the mobile market akin to Google’s? Which player has more influence over a market – the player with 10% market share sucking up 90% of the profits, or the player with 90% marketshare sucking up only 10% of the profits?
I’m no economist so I’m not going to claim I know the answer, but it sure does seem like relying solely on market share to evaluate market dominance seems shortsighted, at best.