News Corp lodges fresh antitrust complaint against Google in Europe

Plus: Google could face formal charges against its Android OS biz practices this week.

Read the whole story

 

[PhilipStorry]

Someone should explain the hyperlink to News Corp. Using short words - like Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer (https://xkcd.com/thing-explainer/)

After all, this is an organisation that has tried, repeatedly, to use paywalls to make sure that nobody can get to their content without first buying a subscription:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=news+corp+paywall

I wonder how many of those paywalls worked? Well, that's a lie. I don't really have to wonder, as most of them died after a short while - paywalls don't work if all you have to offer is the same content as everyone else, dipped in editorial spin. Paywalls only work when you have exclusive content, or a big enough range of content.

The fact is that News Corp don't seem to understand how the internet works. They evidently really struggle with the idea that their content needs to be discoverable and accessible before they can then attempt to make money from it...

So we should start their education with the hyperlink, using only short words, and then move on from there.

 

[Akemi]

News Corp's newspaper the Wall Street Journal—citing an insider—reported that Murdoch's media empire was "concerned Google reinforces its dominance in general search by 'scraping' or copying content from publishers to display the results of news article."

So they don't want articles scraped/summarized.

Google has been accused by News Corp of altogether stripping its search results of articles that publishers prevent from being copied, according to the WSJ.

But then also cry when Google says fine, and just excludes the content entirely?

You can't have it both ways. A search that just returns a URL with no description of content is useless, and would be bypassed by any end-user. Google have to provide some summary of what that link takes you to when clicked to allow the end-user to make a choice as to whether or not that link represents what they were searching for. And that means a least the most cursory of summaries about the article/product/whatever linked.

I really hope the European Commission just responds to Murdoch with:

 

[Alyeska]

I can't help but notice that News Corp is taking Google to task in Europe, not the United States. Fair Use is a bitch apparently.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

I don't think Google are intentionally excluding News Corp articles. More likely, News Corp articles are unlikely to be found when all the search engine can see is the headline. That's much less text that searches could match against compared to the full body text that Google get from non-paywalled publications.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

Alyeska[/url]":33vz6jxt]I can't help but notice that News Corp is taking Google to task in Europe, not the United States. Fair Use is a bitch apparently.

There's similar provisions in some European countries. But this isn't a copyright complaint per se.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

That Vestager link really didn't bring up anything useful. This one does.

 

[kdemello1980]

The only rational response is to root for injuries.

 

[ivantod]

I don't actually understand what the publishers (News corp.) are trying to achieve here. They seem to want some kind of Schrödinger's Google where their articles are indexed, but also not indexed at the same time. Or perhaps it's more like this--they would like Google to send over traffic to them, but at the same time to not actually provide the end user with the actual content that is being indexed, unless they pay. Seems to me they basically want free advertising.

To be honest, in case like this, I would say the right course of action is to simply not provide these articles in the search results.

Also, can I just say, that ghoul Rupert Murdoch can go to hell--he is quite possibly the most evil person alive on this planet.

 

[KGFish]

ivantod[/url]":3mi6dgde]I don't actually understand what the publishers (News corp.) are trying to achieve here. They seem to want some kind of Schrödinger's Google where their articles are indexed, but also not indexed at the same time. Or perhaps it's more like this--they would like Google to send over traffic to them, but at the same time to not actually provide the end user with the actual content that is being indexed, unless they pay. Seems to me they basically want free advertising.

To be honest, in case like this, I would say the right course of action is to simply not provide these articles in the search results.

Also, can I just say, that ghoul Rupert Murdoch can go to hell--he is quite possibly the most evil person alive on this planet.

It's pretty easy: they want free money. They pay their lawyers anyway, so any laws or judgments passed due to their actions is essentially free money.

In the meantime, the current generation is growing up believing that copyright is broken. Long-term, this is not gonna go well.

 

[TheMerricat]

ivantod[/url]":lgc59q9q]I don't actually understand what the publishers (News corp.) are trying to achieve here. They seem to want some kind of Schrödinger's Google where their articles are indexed, but also not indexed at the same time. Or perhaps it's more like this--they would like Google to send over traffic to them, but at the same time to not actually provide the end user with the actual content that is being indexed, unless they pay. Seems to me they basically want free advertising.

To be honest, in case like this, I would say the right course of action is to simply not provide these articles in the search results.

Also, can I just say, that ghoul Rupert Murdoch can go to hell--he is quite possibly the most evil person alive on this planet.

Let's be real here, Murdoch's crew knows exactly what they are doing. Vexatious litigation in a favorable environment. They know exactly what sort of catch-22 they are trying to set up, and that's the point. They are just trying to keep pinging at Google till it either gives up, they get super lucky, or things change and they no longer have a receptive crowd in the EU to do their bidding. The last being ultra unlikely since Google's problem in the EU is more that it's NOT an EU company and less that it's doing anything wrong.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

Akemi[/url]":2ozx3hok]News Corp's newspaper the Wall Street Journal—citing an insider—reported that Murdoch's media empire was "concerned Google reinforces its dominance in general search by 'scraping' or copying content from publishers to display the results of news article."

So they don't want articles scraped/summarized.

Google has been accused by News Corp of altogether stripping its search results of articles that publishers prevent from being copied, according to the WSJ.

But then also cry when Google says fine, and just excludes the content entirely?

You can't have it both ways. A search that just returns a URL with no description of content is useless, and would be bypassed by any end-user. Google have to provide some summary of what that link takes you to when clicked to allow the end-user to make a choice as to whether or not that link represents what they were searching for. And that means a least the most cursory of summaries about the article/product/whatever linked.

I really hope the European Commission just responds to Murdoch with:

Unfortunately the European Commission has been trying to find anything it can do to throw at Google recently. That's why News Corp is filing in Europe; they have an enemy in common with the EC.

And yeah, this sounds suspiciously like the Spanish and German publishers' whining over the past few years. They want to be paid to have their content indexed. Except we're clearly forgetting what happens when you try to pull nonsense like this and disregard how the Internet works.

Study Of Spain's 'Google Tax' On News Shows How Much Damage It Has Done

 

[AHvivere]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

-Dick the Butcher

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Well, if there's one person who could make me reflexively support Team Mountain View despite their sometimes disturbing habits; I think a certain Australian tabloid Liche would be that person...

 

[eldonyo]

Let's see if I have this straight. News Corp doesn't want Google to include any text from any of their articles, but they want their articles to be included in Google's search results so that people can go to a site where they have to pay to see the article that was in Google's search results. If I have this right, this is beyond stupid.

 

[Solidstate89]

This is what happens with a copyright system that doesn't have fair use enshrined in its protections.

Fix your shit EU.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

 

[Solidstate89]

Alyeska[/url]":1532tmg9]I can't help but notice that News Corp is taking Google to task in Europe, not the United States. Fair Use is a bitch apparently.

There's similar provisions in some European countries. But this isn't a copyright complaint per se.

I mean, it technically is. It consists of two conflicting complaints, but one of the complaints is very much about copyright.

News Corp's newspaper the Wall Street Journal—citing an insider—reported that Murdoch's media empire was "concerned Google reinforces its dominance in general search by 'scraping' or copying content from publishers to display the results of news article."

They wouldn't have any issue with them "scraping" content if they didn't come up with the bullshit assertion of Google infringing on the copyright of their "news" articles.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

RockDaMan[/url]":1qnvcf4e]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

Sounds almost like the MS browser case, doesn't it?

 

[JiveTurkeyJerky]

RockDaMan[/url]":25brqu9w]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

I still can't find any logic in their arguments. Though I guess that's my fault, for expecting logic out of lawmakers.

News Corp is probably just being it's greedy asshole self at least.. the EU is just plowing obtusely through something they don't understand ..
...

Dear EU:

Manufacturers willingly chose Android and are free to include whatever apps they want, as long as they also include Google's Apps - seeing as Google does all the heavy lifting with Android development, it seems only fair they can include their apps. Your citizens are also free to buy an iPhone or Windows Phone or CyanogenMod OnePlus or SailfishOS Phone or other - they're not forced into buying an Android phone.

As for search, no one is forcing you to use Google, you're free to use Bing/Yahoo(viaBing)/DuckDuckGo/etc - why should Google be punished because most people prefer their search results? You mean a company can't promote their own goods on their own website (heads up, Google.com is Google's website - where was it deemed a search engine can only show search results?)?

 

[Demento]

Kudos for the cutting-edge Nexus One photo.

 

[Ars of Ares]

KGFish[/url]":ta79byhc]In the meantime, the current generation is growing up believing that copyright is broken. Long-term, this is not gonna go well.

My father is convinced that Google has a liberal bias because of how the search results appear. So, yeah, the narrative is working for the Fox News crowd.

 

[co-lee]

I have noticed similar behavior recently in google news -- WaPo articles now show up with just the headline and no summary snippet. Which not surprisingly means I don't click on them.
I already had gnews set to pretty much never show me any News Corp content so the same thing may be happening there.

 

[yolo78]

Possible solutions:

1) News Corps files a "right to be forgotten" in the EU and Google no longer index's their sites.
2) Google index's News Corp sites but does not display them in Google News, only general search.

Didn't Google recently add something where News sites that wanted their content added to Google News had to actively add some sort of number to their URLs? Wouldn't that constitute consent to be indexed?

As to Android, Google apps must be installed only if the vendor wants the Google Play marketplace installed. Vendors are free to modify Android (Amazon) and not preinstall Google apps. So there already is a fix for that lawsuit.

 

[alanmies]

RockDaMan[/url]":374c34lg]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

 

[MWells]

JiveTurkeyJerky[/url]":z11b7kqw]

RockDaMan[/url]":z11b7kqw]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

I still can't find any logic in their arguments. Though I guess that's my fault, for expecting logic out of lawmakers.

News Corp is probably just being it's greedy asshole self at least.. the EU is just plowing obtusely through something they don't understand ..
...

Dear EU:

Manufacturers willingly chose Android and are free to include whatever apps they want, as long as they also include Google's Apps - seeing as Google does all the heavy lifting with Android development, it seems only fair they can include their apps. Your citizens are also free to buy an iPhone or Windows Phone or CyanogenMod OnePlus or SailfishOS Phone or other - they're not forced into buying an Android phone.

As for search, no one is forcing you to use Google, you're free to use Bing/Yahoo(viaBing)/DuckDuckGo/etc - why should Google be punished because most people prefer their search results? You mean a company can't promote their own goods on their own website (heads up, Google.com is Google's website - where was it deemed a search engine can only show search results?)?

To be fair, you could have made similar arguments about web browsers on Windows back when Google got the EU to badger Microsoft into giving people a choice of browser rather than doling out IE as the default.

It's tempting to call this Google's antitrust chickens coming home to roost.

 

[iPirateEverything]

I think the word "greed" should also be in the above picture...

 

[kuschku]

alanmies[/url]":2qijinf0]

RockDaMan[/url]":2qijinf0]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

The issue is that if SAMSUNG were to produce an Android phone without the Play Store – say, a Kindle phone, Google would immediately disable the Play Store on all their other devices.

This is in the OEM contract.

AOSP also was cut down a lot recently.

AOSP contains no Launcher, no Phone app, no Calendar, no on-device Search, no Music app anymore. All of these apps were abandoned by Google and instead turned into closed source apps.

Additionally, to get access to TLSv1.1 or TLSv1.2 on Android you either have to ship your own crypto, or use Google Play Services. Same if you wish to use OpenGL ES 3.2, or Vulkan. Same if you wish to use any kind of Geofencing or Location access.

Additionally, Google made Google Cloud Messaging mandatory for apps which wish to receive notifications in background on Android N (all apps except for Google apps are killed as soon as the screen is off), while GCM does not work at all on non-Google systems.

(Combine this with the previous, and you notice that you can’t even use your own geofencing service, as your app is killed as soon as the screen is off – you HAVE to use Google’s. Same with several such issues.)

You can not link or even tell your users that your app is available outside the Google Play Store if they downloaded it through the Google Play Store, nor can you tell people how they can acquire an Ad Blocker.

Additionally, if Google has a reason to believe that you broke their ToS, they can demand back any penny they ever paid you, as a developer.

I’ve already filed complaints with the responsible EU offices over all these things as well, because for us developers this is extremely hurtful.

EDIT: Please comment why you think these valid concerns that make life harder for us developers are invalid in your opinion – instead of just downvoting

 

[Saikaici]

MWells[/url]":h9t60dgr]
To be fair, you could have made similar arguments about web browsers on Windows back when Google got the EU to badger Microsoft into giving people a choice of browser rather than doling out IE as the default.

It's tempting to call this Google's antitrust chickens coming home to roost.

Yes... but no. At the time MS Windows was 85%+ of the OS market. There weren't solid alternatives. Android market share is substancial, but choosing something without that bundling is definitely doable without bending over backwards.

 

[kuschku]

Saikaici[/url]":2smvw5pv]

MWells[/url]":2smvw5pv]
To be fair, you could have made similar arguments about web browsers on Windows back when Google got the EU to badger Microsoft into giving people a choice of browser rather than doling out IE as the default.

It's tempting to call this Google's antitrust chickens coming home to roost.

Yes... but no. At the time MS Windows was 85%+ of the OS market. There weren't solid alternatives. Android market share is substancial, but choosing something without that bundling is definitely doable without bending over backwards.

iOS marketshare in the EU is around 16%, Android at almost 84%.

That’s quite comparable.

And Google prohibits OEMs that sell some devices with Play Store from selling android devices without the Play Store.

EDIT: As I mentioned before, please explain why you disagree instead of just downvoting. Downvoting statistics for no good reason is pretty puzzling, and makes it seem more like you just oppose anything that doesn’t agree with your opinion, instead of trying to argue fairly

 

[panton41]

AHvivere[/url]":3o2emzwo]The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

-Dick the Butcher

The trouble with rolling out that quote is that he was advocating the collapse of society by getting rid of the people who could lead to an orderly revolution. (Henry IV is about civil war after all.) The quote actually celebrates a lawyer's usefulness in making society work.

Sincerely, people who've actually seen the play.

 

[DarthSlack]

kuschku[/url]":3eo06qcu]

alanmies[/url]":3eo06qcu]

RockDaMan[/url]":3eo06qcu]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

The issue is that if SAMSUNG were to produce an Android phone without the Play Store – say, a Kindle phone, Google would immediately disable the Play Store on all their other devices.

This is in the OEM contract.

AOSP also was cut down a lot recently.

AOSP contains no Launcher, no Phone app, no Calendar, no on-device Search, no Music app anymore. All of these apps were abandoned by Google and instead turned into closed source apps.

Additionally, to get access to TLSv1.1 or TLSv1.2 on Android you either have to ship your own crypto, or use Google Play Services. Same if you wish to use OpenGL ES 3.2, or Vulkan. Same if you wish to use any kind of Geofencing or Location access.

Additionally, Google made Google Cloud Messaging mandatory for apps which wish to receive notifications in background on Android N (all apps except for Google apps are killed as soon as the screen is off), while GCM does not work at all on non-Google systems.

(Combine this with the previous, and you notice that you can’t even use your own geofencing service, as your app is killed as soon as the screen is off – you HAVE to use Google’s. Same with several such issues.)

You can not link or even tell your users that your app is available outside the Google Play Store if they downloaded it through the Google Play Store, nor can you tell people how they can acquire an Ad Blocker.

Additionally, if Google has a reason to believe that you broke their ToS, they can demand back any penny they ever paid you, as a developer.

I’ve already filed complaints with the responsible EU offices over all these things as well, because for us developers this is extremely hurtful.

EDIT: Please comment why you think these valid concerns that make life harder for us developers are invalid in your opinion – instead of just downvoting

Well, all I can say is if you don't want to play by Google's rules, don't use Android. And no, that isn't a joke.

Google writes and maintains Android, they are entitled to establish the rules that it is used by. They are under no obligation to make ASOP completely equal to the full-blown Android. If Google apps are popular, and users demand them, that is due to Google's efforts and they deserve a return on those efforts.

 

[Saikaici]

kuschku[/url]":3e382fcu]
iOS marketshare in the EU is around 16%, Android at almost 84%.

That’s quite comparable.

Yes, however most popular applications are on both. While more expensive, they're more or less equally matched in terms of what you can do with them. Previously software was a major limiter.

EDIT: As I mentioned before, please explain why you disagree instead of just downvoting. Downvoting statistics for no good reason is pretty puzzling, and makes it seem more like you just oppose anything that doesn’t agree with your opinion, instead of trying to argue fairly

I didn't downvote you, but have you ever been on the internet before? Lurkers don't care.

 

[Great_Scott]

TheMerricat[/url]":1p0vkp1r]

ivantod[/url]":1p0vkp1r]I don't actually understand what the publishers (News corp.) are trying to achieve here. They seem to want some kind of Schrödinger's Google where their articles are indexed, but also not indexed at the same time. Or perhaps it's more like this--they would like Google to send over traffic to them, but at the same time to not actually provide the end user with the actual content that is being indexed, unless they pay. Seems to me they basically want free advertising.

To be honest, in case like this, I would say the right course of action is to simply not provide these articles in the search results.

Also, can I just say, that ghoul Rupert Murdoch can go to hell--he is quite possibly the most evil person alive on this planet.

Let's be real here, Murdoch's crew knows exactly what they are doing. Vexatious litigation in a favorable environment. They know exactly what sort of catch-22 they are trying to set up, and that's the point. They are just trying to keep pinging at Google till it either gives up, they get super lucky, or things change and they no longer have a receptive crowd in the EU to do their bidding. The last being ultra unlikely since Google's problem in the EU is more that it's NOT an EU company and less that it's doing anything wrong.

Wait, Google isn't a EU company? Isn't the company based in Ireland?

 

[Thereitis]

Ostracus[/url]":2vjzznxm]That Vestager link really didn't bring up anything useful. This one does.

Yeah, I don't understand how they can complain that Google requires a certain set of Google apps on a phone before they can use things like Google Play. Carriers and hardware manufactures are allowed to place pretty much any of their own apps on a phone. Users can side-load apps if they wish. Compare that to an iPhone, where carriers are not allowed to place any apps on the phone at all, and there are strict standards you have to meet to get in the app store.

 

[kuschku]

Saikaici[/url]":2q7vau91]

kuschku[/url]":2q7vau91]
EDIT: As I mentioned before, please explain why you disagree instead of just downvoting. Downvoting statistics for no good reason is pretty puzzling, and makes it seem more like you just oppose anything that doesn’t agree with your opinion, instead of trying to argue fairly

I didn't downvote you, but have you ever been on the internet before? Lurkers don't care.

Well, this is ArsTechnica – not Reddit, and also not Facebook or YouTube comments.

So I’d expect a more civil discussion.

 

[Thereitis]

eldonyo[/url]":1ez54lrr]Let's see if I have this straight. News Corp doesn't want Google to include any text from any of their articles, but they want their articles to be included in Google's search results so that people can go to a site where they have to pay to see the article that was in Google's search results. If I have this right, this is beyond stupid.

They want Google's search results to include them. They also want Google to pay them for Google driving views to News Corp's site. Facepalm.

 

[DaveSimmons]

kuschku[/url]":2nbglblc]

alanmies[/url]":2nbglblc]

RockDaMan[/url]":2nbglblc]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

The issue is that if SAMSUNG were to produce an Android phone without the Play Store – say, a Kindle phone, Google would immediately disable the Play Store on all their other devices.

This is in the OEM contract.

AOSP also was cut down a lot recently.

AOSP contains no Launcher, no Phone app, no Calendar, no on-device Search, no Music app anymore. All of these apps were abandoned by Google and instead turned into closed source apps.

Additionally, to get access to TLSv1.1 or TLSv1.2 on Android you either have to ship your own crypto, or use Google Play Services. Same if you wish to use OpenGL ES 3.2, or Vulkan. Same if you wish to use any kind of Geofencing or Location access.

Additionally, Google made Google Cloud Messaging mandatory for apps which wish to receive notifications in background on Android N (all apps except for Google apps are killed as soon as the screen is off), while GCM does not work at all on non-Google systems.

(Combine this with the previous, and you notice that you can’t even use your own geofencing service, as your app is killed as soon as the screen is off – you HAVE to use Google’s. Same with several such issues.)

You can not link or even tell your users that your app is available outside the Google Play Store if they downloaded it through the Google Play Store, nor can you tell people how they can acquire an Ad Blocker.

Additionally, if Google has a reason to believe that you broke their ToS, they can demand back any penny they ever paid you, as a developer.

I’ve already filed complaints with the responsible EU offices over all these things as well, because for us developers this is extremely hurtful.

EDIT: Please comment why you think these valid concerns that make life harder for us developers are invalid in your opinion – instead of just downvoting

A lot of that sounds like nit-picking to bulk up your list, e.g. "have to ship your own crypto" is a a trivial hurdle for a phone manufacturer.

We've shipped apps at work with included open-source crypto libraries for 10+ years now. We're much smaller than Samsung.

 

[kuschku]

DaveSimmons[/url]":3c9e0663]

kuschku[/url]":3c9e0663]

alanmies[/url]":3c9e0663]

RockDaMan[/url]":3c9e0663]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

The issue is that if SAMSUNG were to produce an Android phone without the Play Store – say, a Kindle phone, Google would immediately disable the Play Store on all their other devices.

This is in the OEM contract.

AOSP also was cut down a lot recently.

AOSP contains no Launcher, no Phone app, no Calendar, no on-device Search, no Music app anymore. All of these apps were abandoned by Google and instead turned into closed source apps.

Additionally, to get access to TLSv1.1 or TLSv1.2 on Android you either have to ship your own crypto, or use Google Play Services. Same if you wish to use OpenGL ES 3.2, or Vulkan. Same if you wish to use any kind of Geofencing or Location access.

Additionally, Google made Google Cloud Messaging mandatory for apps which wish to receive notifications in background on Android N (all apps except for Google apps are killed as soon as the screen is off), while GCM does not work at all on non-Google systems.

(Combine this with the previous, and you notice that you can’t even use your own geofencing service, as your app is killed as soon as the screen is off – you HAVE to use Google’s. Same with several such issues.)

You can not link or even tell your users that your app is available outside the Google Play Store if they downloaded it through the Google Play Store, nor can you tell people how they can acquire an Ad Blocker.

Additionally, if Google has a reason to believe that you broke their ToS, they can demand back any penny they ever paid you, as a developer.

I’ve already filed complaints with the responsible EU offices over all these things as well, because for us developers this is extremely hurtful.

EDIT: Please comment why you think these valid concerns that make life harder for us developers are invalid in your opinion – instead of just downvoting

A lot of that sounds like nit-picking to bulk up your list, i.e. "have to ship your own crypto" is a a trivial hurdle for a phone manufacturer.

We've shipped apps at work with included open-source crypto libraries for 10+ years now. We're much smaller than Samsung.

For a phone manufacturer, yes.

For a developer? Every single Android App has to include its own version of BouncyCastle.

And for open source developers trying to run Replicant on all their devices it’s getting almost impossible to do anything properly.

 

[DaveSimmons]

kuschku[/url]":30vmhm7c]

DaveSimmons[/url]":30vmhm7c]

kuschku[/url]":30vmhm7c]

alanmies[/url]":30vmhm7c]

RockDaMan[/url]":30vmhm7c]The News corp thing pales next to the EU thing for immediacy.

The EU has given its strongest signal to date of its intent to crack down hard on Google’s mobile operating system, comparing an imminent antitrust case against Android to Brussels’ epic confrontation with Microsoft a decade ago.

People involved in the case said that EU regulators were very close to opening a long-expected new front in their showdown with Google, which has already been hit with charges that it abused its dominance of online searches.

A second charge sheet, in relation to Android, is almost finalised.
-
Ms Vestager said on Monday that she was concerned that Google could be unfairly taking advantage of consumers’ desire to have pre-installed apps, ready for use as soon as “we take a new smartphone out of its box”. This could stifle innovation by keeping fledgling app makers and service providers out of the market.

“Our concern is that, by requiring phonemakers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers,” she said in a speech in the Netherlands.

https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/#link1

That makes zero sense. There is AOSP, free for anyone to use (see Amazon for example). There's the Play Store, including it requires some other Google apps to be installed. I honestly can't see the problem here - and if there is indeed a problem, what about iOS then? One can't even install an alternative browser (with a different rendering engine) there.

The issue is that if SAMSUNG were to produce an Android phone without the Play Store – say, a Kindle phone, Google would immediately disable the Play Store on all their other devices.

This is in the OEM contract.

AOSP also was cut down a lot recently.

AOSP contains no Launcher, no Phone app, no Calendar, no on-device Search, no Music app anymore. All of these apps were abandoned by Google and instead turned into closed source apps.

Additionally, to get access to TLSv1.1 or TLSv1.2 on Android you either have to ship your own crypto, or use Google Play Services. Same if you wish to use OpenGL ES 3.2, or Vulkan. Same if you wish to use any kind of Geofencing or Location access.

Additionally, Google made Google Cloud Messaging mandatory for apps which wish to receive notifications in background on Android N (all apps except for Google apps are killed as soon as the screen is off), while GCM does not work at all on non-Google systems.

(Combine this with the previous, and you notice that you can’t even use your own geofencing service, as your app is killed as soon as the screen is off – you HAVE to use Google’s. Same with several such issues.)

You can not link or even tell your users that your app is available outside the Google Play Store if they downloaded it through the Google Play Store, nor can you tell people how they can acquire an Ad Blocker.

Additionally, if Google has a reason to believe that you broke their ToS, they can demand back any penny they ever paid you, as a developer.

I’ve already filed complaints with the responsible EU offices over all these things as well, because for us developers this is extremely hurtful.

EDIT: Please comment why you think these valid concerns that make life harder for us developers are invalid in your opinion – instead of just downvoting

A lot of that sounds like nit-picking to bulk up your list, i.e. "have to ship your own crypto" is a a trivial hurdle for a phone manufacturer.

We've shipped apps at work with included open-source crypto libraries for 10+ years now. We're much smaller than Samsung.

For a phone manufacturer, yes.

For a developer? Every single Android App has to include its own version of BouncyCastle.

And for open source developers trying to run Replicant on all their devices it’s getting almost impossible to do anything properly.

Adding one more library to your project isn't hard, but is it even needed if the phone manufacturer's Android fork drops in something compatible with Google's? I do Windows development so I haven't compared Amazon's fork with Google's Android.