Antitrust Case Against Google Thrown Out of SF Court 62
Mark Wilson (3799011) writes "Just a few days ago Google was threatened with legal action for anti-competitive behavior in Russia. While we don't yet know if that will amount to anything, there has been some better news for the search giant in the US. A San Francisco judge dismissed a case brought against the firm by two men who thought the inclusion of Google services in Android pushed up the prices of their handsets."
Inclusion would lower it if anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Google provides Android free of charge (including a free device approval process) under the model that they'll make money back from people using their services.
Re: Inclusion would lower it if anything (Score:4, Informative)
They have to provide Google with personal information which could have been sold instead.
Even if you play it that way, you're still proving my point. If Google didn't figure you using those services into the price of the device, then they would charge the OEM for licensing the Android trademark, which means the manufacturer would charge you more money for the phone.
Now if you could use the device without creating an account with Google there would be no additional charges.
You can.
When you receive a new Android phone it asks you to sign in, but you're allowed to skip that step entirely (there's a button for it.) You're then free to make calls, run apps, etc. So yeah, you very much can use the device without creating a Google account.
You won't be able to download apps from the Play store, but you'll be able to sideload your own apps if you want (to include downloading the f-droid app store, Amazon app store, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't yet seen any version of Android that doesn't permit you to skip the sign in step, and I've been using Android since version 2.0.
Re: (Score:1)
You know you're spoiled when your main complaint about a $600 gift-to-yourself is that the plastic wrapping wasn't on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you play it that way, you're still proving my point. If Google didn't figure you using those services into the price of the device, then they would charge the OEM for licensing the Android trademark, which means the manufacturer would charge you more money for the phone.
They do, it's called the Open Handset Alliance.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that really true? What are your alternatives?
* dumb phone
* iPhone that does mostly the same thing as an Android phone but costs more $$$ and delivers the same information, but to Apple instead of Google
Re: (Score:3)
You just made Steve Ballmer throw a chair in disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and you've prompted John Chen to write another letter to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
The Amazon Fire Phone is Android based but does not use Google services.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't really looked into it but I believe it runs standard Android apps. Of course, without the Google services, a lot of apps won't run but that's more Google attempting vendor lock-in in my opinion.
I haven't looked into the Amazon app store so I don't know how good or bad it is. I do know that as an Android dev, I fairly regularly get contacted by people claiming to represent other app stores who offer to include my apps (or do it without asking) but I have heard nothing from Amazon so far (though I'
Re: (Score:2)
The Amazon Fire Phone is Android based but does not use Google services.
Yes but it's not Android, it is a different operating system derived from Android called Fire OS [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. But reading that article, it seems that it's mostly a branding issue. And they may be concerned about upsetting people who have come to identify Android with Google services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the Set up accounts screen, choose which accounts you want to set up. Tap Skip if you do not want to set up accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
you can use without creating a google account.
and.. is it really free? the certification? I highly doubt it. google has said that it does not charge a fee per device but it hasn't to my knowledge said anything about the certification and partnership process being free - and the services are an all or nothing kind of a deal.
thus you have plenty of china droids that ship without googles stuff.
Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing (Score:1)
Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots
Re: (Score:2)
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
Re: (Score:1)
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Inclusion of a CPU pushes up the price of the hand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, I don't care for the quad-cpu option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and a bigger hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Operator apps (Score:4, Informative)
Newer versions of Android (I'm wanting to say 4.3 or above, but I'm not certain) allow you to disable those, which includes removing the icon for them and making sure they can't run. Open the app drawer, long press and hold the app icon and drag it to the "app info" (or sometimes just a lowercase i in a circle) and release. On that screen, tap the "turn off" button.
If you want to remove the app entirely (so that it doesn't use up NVRAM space) then you can use something like Titanium Backup, but you have to be rooted for it to work.
You can also remove Youtube and Maps, but doing so will probably break other apps (part of the video playback api is included in the youtube app, and any app that uses map services like Endomondo or Gas Buddy will not work if you remove Google Maps. The same is true of any app that uses the sync service API if you remove the gmail app.)
Re: (Score:2)
Newer versions of Android (I'm wanting to say 4.3 or above, but I'm not certain) allow you to disable those, which includes removing the icon for them and making sure they can't run.
Starting with 5.0 there's another potential improvement: http://www.androidauthority.co... [androidauthority.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Newer versions of Android (I'm wanting to say 4.3 or above, but I'm not certain) allow you to disable those, which includes removing the icon for them and making sure they can't run.
It actually goes back further, I think all the way to 4.0 but really the problem hasn't properly been solved until 5.0
While you can hide and disable the apps they are still part of the system partition. The apps re-appear and get updated as part of distribution updates by vendors (I guess the only saving grace here is how poor vendors are at providing these updates).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you can just shove them all in a folder and forget about them and use whatever third party apps you want. Or you can root your phone and erase or lock them down.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you can just shove them all in a folder and forget about them and use whatever third party apps you want. Or you can root your phone and erase or lock them down.
Or disable them. They're still on the /system partition then, but can't run and their icons don't show up.
Certainly it increased the price of the handsets (Score:3)
Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing). Ditto even for hardware, having a camera or WiFi on the phone increases the price of the handset.
None of which matters. The question in an antitrust case isn't whether it increased the price, it's whether Google used it's control of the Android OS to force vendors to include other Google services as a condition of using Android at all. And the answer to that question is no, Google doesn't do that. Amazon's phone runs Android without having Google services pre-installed (although you can install them yourself). The Kindles are a really good example, they run Android without any of the Google stuff at all and there isn't even any way of installing the Google services. Several Chinese companies make Android phones without Google services. I even have that with my Galaxy S4: I flashed it with CyanogenMod, so I start out without any of the Google apps or services and have to bootstrap an installation of them myself if I want them. The only downside is that if you don't accept Google's terms for officially using Google Play Services and their apps, you can't use the related trademarks for much except referring to those apps. So no, on antitrust grounds Google's OK because they simply aren't using their monopoly on Android (although technically they don't even have a monopoly, see CyanogenMod and AOSP) to force other Google services on manufacturers, carriers or users. In fact Google isn't even being as strict as they could be legally. They'd be within their rights to deny any use of the Google services and apps except where the vendor had the full license, but Google doesn't go that far because they realize it'd be a) stupid because it would annoy users who'd then shy away from Google completely and b) not in their best interests because it'd prevent Google customers from using Google services which would reduce Google's revenue. So all they do is say "You want to use our logos and brands and have access to all the official tools? You need to take our package. Otherwise, you'll have to install things by hand like anybody else." (well, not completely by hand since once they've done it once they can just clone the firmware image and flash it straight into the phones).
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing).
How? If you charge nothing for the creation of something hoping to recoup the cost through end user use then how does it increase the price of the handset? The only time that applies is with vendor modifications where the development cost is part of the device, not with 3rd party installs that don't change the price for the end user.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda-sorta. They can use Google's services and pick and choose which services. That doesn't require Google Play Services or Google's apps. Google publishes the APIs for all their services, and anyone's free to get a developer account, generate API keys and create their own apps that access Google's services (as long as they don't abuse the services, of course). What they can't do is preload Play Services and/or Google's apps (which are copyrighted and not open-source) without an agreement with Google which
Due Diligence? (Score:2)
Look like plaintiff sue the wrong party (Score:1)
I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the And