What If the EU Actually Fixed Android? (Premium)

As you may recall, antitrust regulators from the European Union fined Google about $5 billion in July, charging that the online giant has illegally abused its power in the smartphone market. In an analysis of this situation, I compared Google's case to Microsoft's earlier antitrust cases, highlighting the ways in which each is similar and dissimilar.

Google has 90 days to respond to the ruling. And it has shown a willingness to make the changes that the EU requires, in sharp contrast to Microsoft's earlier and more belligerent reaction to its own antitrust cases. That's smart, given the history of Microsoft's "lost decade" and that Google's monopoly power today far exceeds that of Microsoft in its own heyday. Google has so much more to lose.

My initial assessment was that the impact of the EU's Android case would be "minimal" across device makers, wireless carriers, developers, and users. I described this situation as a "good thing" because the last thing the industry needs is another slow-moving bureaucracy sticking a wrench into the spokes of the wheels of progress. What I was thinking of, at the time, was the silly browser ballot UI that the EU previously required Microsoft to add to Windows.

But now I'm starting to think that the EU case may have a much broader impact on Android. And that the resulting change will still be good for the ecosystem. And could reverse some Google policies that, today, severely limit how companies can bring Android-based products to market.

The key to this thinking is the third of the three types of restrictions that Google has placed in its Android licensing terms: Google prevents hardware makers that want to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single mobile device running on alternative Android versions (or "forks") that were not approved by Google.

So what does that mean, exactly?

It means that there are two Androids. "Real" Android, which is not free and includes the Google Play Store and a suite of Google apps and services that are both pre-installed on the device and enabled as defaults. And the free Android that Google is so quick to defend itself with, which does not include the Google Play Store or Google apps and services.

No one wants the free version of Android. The near-impossibility of creating a third-party apps store is, alone, the reason we rarely see such devices. As relevant, customers expect and want those Google apps and services. Amazon's Kindle Fire lineup is the only major example of an Android-based device family that uses this free version. And Amazon isn't exactly winning accolades for the quality or size of its app store.

So how does this policy impact devices in the real world?

Two major examples come to mind.

First up is Amazon. Like many companies, Amazon doesn't actually "make" its own portable computing devices. It works with other companies that have this expertise. But because those companies are not allowed to make devices based on th...

Gain unlimited access to Premium articles.

With technology shaping our everyday lives, how could we not dig deeper?

Thurrott Premium delivers an honest and thorough perspective about the technologies we use and rely on everyday. Discover deeper content as a Premium member.

Tagged with

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC