The European Union has filed an antitrust complaint to Google because they have contracts with Android producers to have their apps preinstalled on smartphones. Androids make up about 70% of all the phones used in the EU. It is believed that these preloaded apps make it hard for competitors to enter the market because if the app is already installed people will not go looking for another one. However, Google has not created programs to block other competing apps from being downloaded, so buying competitors apps are still possible.
This article goes into further detail:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/google-s-curbs-on-phone-makers-choke-app-competition-eu-says
What do you guys think? Is Google in violation of any antitrust laws or is the fact that downloading other apps is still possible enough of a reason to say this is allowed? Will this case change anything about technology?
Yes, consumers can still download other apps besides google apps. But since google apps are always there as a default setting even before consumers buy cellphones, EU can argue that Google's behavior is significantly limiting consumer's choice and discouraging other app developers. Also, Android, Google's mobile operating system, has the highest market share in Europe. So, I think Google's behavior is monopoly-like.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason why I use iPhones because the only preinstalled software is produced by Apple themselves. From setting up my mother's Android phone I noticed a lot of preloaded third party content. Very annoying! I would like to think though that people are smart enough to be able to download and install their own apps from the app store. Not sure if they are violating anti trust laws. However, I don't think it gives Android a good reputation.
ReplyDeleteI am also an iPhone user and I agree with Kenny that while using or setting up my parent's phones it was annoying seeing third party apps from that were preinstalled that I knew they had no use for. However, I am not sure if they are violating anti trust laws, and considering that Google is company that produces it could be argued that they can preinstall whatever they want just as iPhones come installed with apps such as iBooks or Apple maps (although they are more useful than some preinstalled Android apps). Also while this monopolization gives Google a bad reputation considering it 70% of the EU has Google phones, I am not sure if they have enough of a reason to change anything unless they are legally forced to.
ReplyDeleteNot to sound repetitive but I think Kenny and Bharath pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter. I can see the argument against Google, but as others mentioned Apple does the same thing on their iPhones by preinstalling their own software. I guess I personally don't see it as monopolistic. I also don't think there's enough substance in the claims against Google for them to force Google to change its practices.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting. As an iPhone user, I was always annoyed with Safari and by the fact that I cannot remove those default-set apps (including Safari) from my phone. As soon as I learned about other Browsers like Chrome or Firefox as a substitute for Safari, I switched to Chrome. But till then, I felt like I was "forced" to use Safari without freedom of choice. If everyone clearly knows that there are other browser options, it may be a different story.
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge that there is difference between Safari and Google that Safari is created by Apple itself and Google is pretty much a third-party app that has been preinstalled. But because Google is a third party, not a phone maker like Apple, this definitely is a violation of law. And the fact that Google "unfairly pays phone makers and telecom operators a share of advertising revenue if they agree to make Google's search engine the default on devices," just underscores EU's argument. This attempt to dominate the market share definitely is a violation of antitrust laws. It simply violates Sherman Act of 1890 Section 2 that restricts the monopoly or an attempt to monopoly.
I agree with Jen that this is a violation of antitrust law as it limits other competitors that may offer the better browser service. And I hope that this case will further allow other competitors to enter the market more easily and offer the Smartphone users with better quality apps.
Whether Google violates the antitrust law will be depending on the definition of monopoly. Google says it never monopolizes a certain market. They are insisting that Google provides best services to customers. Also, since these free applications are free, it is irrational to charge Google under the law of antitrust. EU's complaint seems more like diplomatic towards American companies.
ReplyDelete*What I mean by "the definition of monopoly" is that the judgement of monopoly can be different, depending on how the government defines the market that the company is in.
Delete