TechCentralTechCentral
    Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentral TechCentral
    NEWSLETTER
    • News

      Unlawful Eskom strike costing South Africa three stages of load shedding

      1 July 2022

      Striking Eskom workers will face consequences: De Ruyter

      1 July 2022

      The AI tool that has changed my life as a developer

      1 July 2022

      Google.co.za is down and the domain is pending deletion

      1 July 2022

      US files charges over South African bitcoin fraud scheme

      1 July 2022
    • World

      Meta girds for ‘fierce’ headwinds

      1 July 2022

      Graphics card prices plummet as crypto demand dries up

      30 June 2022

      Bitcoin just had its worst quarter in a decade

      30 June 2022

      Samsung beats TSMC to 3nm chip production

      30 June 2022

      Napster plots crypto comeback

      29 June 2022
    • In-depth

      The NFT party is over

      30 June 2022

      The great crypto crash: the fallout, and what happens next

      22 June 2022

      Goodbye, Internet Explorer – you really won’t be missed

      19 June 2022

      Oracle’s database dominance threatened by rise of cloud-first rivals

      13 June 2022

      Everything Apple announced at WWDC – in less than 500 words

      7 June 2022
    • Podcasts

      How your organisation can triage its information security risk

      22 June 2022

      Everything PC S01E06 – ‘Apple Silicon’

      15 June 2022

      The youth might just save us

      15 June 2022

      Everything PC S01E05 – ‘Nvidia: The Green Goblin’

      8 June 2022

      Everything PC S01E04 – ‘The story of Intel – part 2’

      1 June 2022
    • Opinion

      Has South Africa’s advertising industry lost its way?

      21 June 2022

      Rob Lith: What Icasa’s spectrum auction means for SA companies

      13 June 2022

      A proposed solution to crypto’s stablecoin problem

      19 May 2022

      From spectrum to roads, why fixing SA’s problems is an uphill battle

      19 April 2022

      How AI is being deployed in the fight against cybercriminals

      8 April 2022
    • Company Hubs
      • 1-grid
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Amplitude
      • Atvance Intellect
      • Axiz
      • BOATech
      • CallMiner
      • Digital Generation
      • E4
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • IBM
      • Kyocera Document Solutions
      • Microsoft
      • Nutanix
      • One Trust
      • Pinnacle
      • Skybox Security
      • SkyWire
      • Tarsus on Demand
      • Videri Digital
      • Zendesk
    • Sections
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud computing
      • Consumer electronics
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Energy
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Motoring and transport
      • Public sector
      • Science
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home»News»What is Europe’s beef with Google?

    What is Europe’s beef with Google?

    News By The Conversation6 May 2016
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email

    google-640

    Google has been dragged over the coals by the European Union’s competition watchdog, culminating in the European Commission formally charging Google with abusing the dominant position of its Android mobile phone operating system, having launched an investigation in April 2015.

    Powerful firms are prohibited from engaging in anticompetitive behaviour under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or TFEU. European law calls this an abuse of a dominant position, but really it can be seen simply as bullying. The EU courts have long recognised that dominant firms have “a special responsibility not to allow [their] conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition”.

    To violate EU competition law, a firm must be dominant in a particular market — just having a large market share indicates dominance, but isn’t sufficient. Other factors need to be studied, such as barriers to market entry and exit, or switching costs. A market that is easy to enter despite one firm having a large share of it may still be contestable by newcomers.

    The conduct of firms with dominant positions is subject to particular scrutiny for evidence of abusive conduct, such as that aimed at eliminating actual or potential competitors or exploiting consumers.

    If any abusive behaviour is found, the European Commission has the power to demand changes to contracts and impose fines of up to 10% of the firm’s annual turnover. In the case of Google, this would be an eye-watering US$7bn, based on its 2015 revenues. Any such sanctions are subject to review by the EU courts.

    What are the allegations?

    The European Commission considers that Google is dominant in three markets: general Internet search, licensable mobile operating systems as used on smartphones and tablet computers, and stores for Android apps. It considers that Google controls more than 90% of each market.

    It’s important to understand that Android is essentially composed of two parts. The first is the open-source operating system core, which everyone can use, alter, change, repackage and re-release as their own. The other is proprietary, which is closed source and belongs to Google, which keeps it to itself. This means that a firm manufacturing mobile phones must buy a licence from Google to use the proprietary part of Android, even though the rest of it is open source and free.

    Google, the commission argues, violated EU rules by requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search and its Chrome browser and obliging them to make Google search a default search service as a condition of being granted a licence for Google’s proprietary apps, particularly the Play Store app which is the key marketplace for Android-compatible apps.

    Google also prevents manufacturers from selling devices running on any nonstandard variations of the Android operating system (known as “forks”) — and offers financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile phone networks if they exclusively pre-install Google search on their devices.

    This behaviour has an essentially foreclosing effect — it makes it difficult for other firms to compete with Google, and reinforces Google’s dominance in general search — its most profitable business area. It may also harm consumers by denying them access to devices run on competing Android forks, thereby stifling innovation.

    Is Google the new Microsoft?

    These are serious charges. They resemble similar anticompetitive charges brought against Microsoft 20 years ago for bundling a media player and Web browser with its Windows operating system. One difference lies in the fact that Microsoft built its products into each other, technologically, whereas Google bound them together contractually.

    However, manufacturers can use the open-source Android, but they cannot pre-install the proprietary Google apps, including the Play Store, which as the main Android app marketplace is seen as critical. There are other app stores available for Android, for example Amazon Appstore, but none has a comparable library of apps. What’s more, Google’s approach is all-or-nothing: installing the Play Store means installing all the other Google apps in the bundle, such as Google search, the Chrome browser or the Gmail app. The effect is that Google’s own apps are given unparalleled presence and visibility, leveraging and strengthening Google’s dominant position.

    In its first response, Google underlined the voluntary character of the agreements and the open-source nature of Android. It argued that Android was designed “in a way that’s good for competition and for consumers”.

    Google has 12 weeks to respond formally and show that any such restrictions are legitimate. Some, particularly in the US, argue that the European Commission is obsessed with scrutinising US tech firms. But the US Federal Trade Commission recently opened a similar investigation, so it is not, as some have suggested, anti-US sentiment. But with differences between EU and US law, where US law tends to be more lenient with larger firms, it’s not clear that the two bodies will come to the same conclusions.The Conversation

    • Marek Martyniszyn is lecturer in law, Queen’s University Belfast
    • This article was originally published on The Conversation
    European Commission Google Marek Martyniszyn Microsoft
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email
    Previous ArticleMuthambi in scathing attack on SA media
    Next Article How (not) to attract Internet investment to SA

    Related Posts

    Unlawful Eskom strike costing South Africa three stages of load shedding

    1 July 2022

    Striking Eskom workers will face consequences: De Ruyter

    1 July 2022

    The AI tool that has changed my life as a developer

    1 July 2022
    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Promoted

    Billetterie simplifies interactions between law firms and clients

    30 June 2022

    Think herding cats is tricky? Try herding a cloud

    29 June 2022

    How your business can help hybrid workers effectively

    28 June 2022
    Opinion

    Has South Africa’s advertising industry lost its way?

    21 June 2022

    Rob Lith: What Icasa’s spectrum auction means for SA companies

    13 June 2022

    A proposed solution to crypto’s stablecoin problem

    19 May 2022

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2022 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.