Google today had a record fine applied by the European Commission for violating competition law, the amount of 4.3 billion dollars being requested by the authorities from the American company. Google was found guilty by the European authorities for violating the freedom of Android device manufacturers to choose which services to offer as standard in phones, but Google claims that the reality is much different.
Below is the entire press release provided today by Google to explain that Android does not violate competition law in the European Union, and that the fine is applied incorrectly. Google will certainly attack the fine announced by the European Commission, but if it loses, it will have to pay the amount of money, and it will have to make major changes in the Android operating system used by so many people.
"Android created more options, not fewer
When you buy an Android phone, you're choosing one of the two most popular mobile platforms in the world – one that has helped expand the range of phones available worldwide.
Today, the European Commission adopted a decision to initiate anti-competitive practices proceedings against Android and its business model. The decision overlooks the fact that phones with the Android operating system compete with iOS phones, an aspect confirmed by 89% of the participants in the market study carried out by the Commission. It also leaves out the fact that Android offers countless options to the thousands of phone manufacturers and mobile network operators that make and sell Android devices; to the millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses on Android and the billions of consumers who can now afford and use the latest Android smartphones.
Today, thanks to the Android system, there are more than 24.000 devices at various prices from more than 1.300 different brands, including Finnish, French, German, Italian, Latvian, Dutch, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish and Hungarian phone manufacturers .
Android gives you a choice
The phones produced by these companies are different, but they have something in common—the ability to run the same applications. And this is possible thanks to some simple rules that guarantee technical compatibility, regardless of the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is forced to adopt these rules—they can use or modify Android in any way they want, as Amazon has done with Fire tablets and TV sticks.
If they want to be successful, open-source platforms must make special efforts to meet the needs of each user equally. History shows us that the lack of basic compatibility rules leads to the fragmentation of open-source platforms, which affects users, developers and phone manufacturers. The compatibility rules of the Android system do not allow this and make it an attractive long-term proposition for everyone.
It creates flexibility, options and opportunities
Today, thanks to the Android operating system, an ordinary phone can have up to 40 applications pre-installed from several developers, not just from the company you buy your phone from. If you have other preferences for apps – or browsers or search engines – than the pre-installed ones, you can easily uninstall or delete them and opt for other apps, including those created by around 1,6 million Europeans who make their living as app developers. applications.
Basically, a regular Android phone user will install about 50 applications himself. Globally, over 94 billion apps were downloaded from our Google Play app store last year; browsers like Opera Mini and Firefox have been downloaded more than 100 million times, UC Browser more than 500 million times.
That's a considerable difference from the situation in the 1990s and early 2000s—the dial-up era. Back then, changing pre-installed applications on a computer or adding new ones was technically cumbersome and time-consuming. The Commission's Android decision ignores the expanded new range of options and clear evidence of how people use their phones.
A platform built for the smartphone era
In 2007, we chose to offer the Android system for free to phone manufacturers and mobile network operators. Of course, making the Android operating system involved costs, and over the past ten years Google has invested billions of dollars to get to the current version of Android. The investment is justified because we can thus offer phone manufacturers the option of pre-installing some popular Google applications (such as Search, Chrome, Play, Maps and Gmail), some of which generate revenue for us, and all of which guarantee the phone will be up and running on the spot, straight out of the box. Phone manufacturers are not required to include our services and are also free to pre-install competing apps alongside ours. Which means we only earn revenue if our apps are installed and people choose to use them instead of competing apps.
Advantageous for partners, advantageous for consumers
The free distribution of the Android platform and Google's suite of applications is effective not only for phone manufacturers and carriers – it is extremely beneficial for developers and consumers. If phone manufacturers and mobile network operators could not include our applications on their wide range of devices, the balance of the Android ecosystem would be affected. So far, the Android business model has meant that we've neither had to ask phone manufacturers to pay for the technology we've provided, nor depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.
I've always felt that expansion brings with it more responsibility. A healthy and thriving Android ecosystem is in everyone's interest, and we've demonstrated that we're willing to make changes. But we're concerned that today's decision will undo the solid balance we've achieved with Android, and that it sends a worrying signal that favors proprietary systems over open platforms.
Rapid innovation, a wealth of options and falling prices are classic features of robust competition, and Android has facilitated all of this. Today's decision rejects the Android business model, which created more options for everyone, not limited them. We intend to appeal this decision."
