on April 20 the european Commission has sent Google a statement of objections, a document with which the Eu has expressed doubts about how the Mountain View manages the compatibility and Android applications.
The answer, waiting to Brussels for tomorrow, has arrived with a few hours in advance. On the plate there is a fine that can reach up to 10% of the turnover, i.e. a figure close to 7 billion dollars.
The allegations focus particularly around three points key. The first is the natural predisposition with which Google asks manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome. The second point is again related to the producers, and according to the conclusions reached by the Eu, Google would ask them not to sell fork Android, or copies of the original, what in reality is possible because Android is open source.
The third node is related to the fact that the producers would have received financial contributions from Mountain View if they had the pre-installed apps and Google services on the devices put on the market.
There is a fourth objection, but this can be postponed to the sender without too much effort, for which the Eu accuses Android of not to make competition to Apple.
Also, keeping fair distance between the facts and merely describe them as they are, this last accusation is suspicious and tends to make credible a fury of the Eu vis-à-vis Google. Argue that Android should make a competition to the Apple is how to support that Tesla should be the enemy of the commercial of the Mercedes.
Thanks to Android, today, smartphones are accessible to anyone in the western world and millions of people in economies less established, but this cannot be said for Apple, which, among other things, caresses so velvety to the market as a status symbol, a thing which does not touch the Android to do, but, if appropriate, to manufacturers that make use of the Google operating system. And if definissimo as a single entity, the manufacturers of Android devices, from those that cost a few tens of euros to those for portfolios a more broad and thick, this single subject would occupy 90% of the market. In this perspective, it should be Apple to care more to compete with Android.
The other allegations, instead, they appear for the less well-founded. The legal BigG have packaged a complete response and precise, starting from the point of view of the development of applications. Android, launched in 2007, helped revolutionize the mobile market so much so that today, there are 24 thousand different products, from over 1,300 brands, which have paved the way (in a relationship of mutual thrust) to millions of developers and applications that are used by over a billion people in the world. Inevitable, according to the opinion of Google, that this ecosystem is able to balance the interests of anyone, starting from the users, mobile operators, through to developers and producers.
The question of the fork becomes more interesting: Google responds that the millions of developers who work with Android, they need an environment and a logical architecture (a framework) to be able to achieve results. Thus it becomes necessary to prevent Android to keep your own backbone standard because, being open source, anyone can grab it from the web and make a version that uses different logics, forcing developers to prepare multiple versions of the same application.
Removed this duty compatibility, Google ensures that leave the manufacturers too wide a margin for manoeuvre, allowing him to create a wide range of mobile phones and tablets for all budgets, create competition in all market segments:, not just those occupied by Android.
Apple and Microsoft, which use operating systems of all the owners, do not have to deal with a similar problem, when on the market there are too many versions of the operating system, you don’t support it any longer. ” , or which precluded its use for use in next-generation product.
At a similar conclusion has arrived the european Commission which, through an investigation, has established that the fragmentation, that is, the coexistence of many versions of Android are substantially different between them, takes away so much to Google as well as producers and, therefore, to the users. Also in this case, it is interesting to understand why is the Eu asking a question to Google knowing already the answer.
as regards the allegations that the producers would be obliged to pre-install applications, Google claims that the applications, available to producers, allowing users to access the services of BigG, moreover often provided free of charge. Also, they support in Mountain View, Apple and Microsoft do the same, leaving the user a limited choice, having less applications available. Applications signed by Google and pre-installed on the devices are less than a third of those that normally the user is at the initial power-up and adds BigG, everyone can remove them when he wants to.
The emphasis placed on the app the Google Search, Chrome, Google Play, says BigG, lets you do not apply your license costs for the benefit of producers and users. Google also has a return from these applications, but, it is pointed out in the reasoning in support of the response that is sent to Brussels, the fact that Android is free doesn’t mean that the costs of development and updates that are incurred are not significant.
One fact is irrefutable, at least until Brussels will not take a decision and do not motivate: the open platforms have, as their essential characteristic, that of being able to satisfy the widest number of needs and, from this point of view, Google can be criticised.
do you Want to receive updates on this topic?
Follow
No comments:
Post a Comment