Android gives Google a search monopoly? Not so fast, says judge

A US District Court judge has cast doubt on an antitrust lawsuit filed against Google, describing the damages sought as "speculative." The class-action suit filed earlier this year alleges that Google engages in illegal anti-competitive behavior by requiring makers of Android smartphones to bundle its search app on their …

[Anonymous Coward]

"But Google has argued that consumers are free to use whichever search app they want..."

And Microsoft argued the same at a prior date...so? I really don't like Microsoft or Google, but this verdict could very well overturn an older one.

Honestly in my opinion Google is guilty. Sure you can play the consumer choice angle, but they know exactly how profitable this is, and don't care to change it. I almost want to think that if I was Google, I too would want to put my search engine on my phone. But, being Google is basically just a search engine, this thought would be an extension of my business model. Can't say I disagree, but I can't disagree that it would be solely for profit, which in turn takes profit from a competitor. Hmm...

The whole thing is sticky I guess, but I'm wondering who Microsoft would stand in defense for, because they could have an interest either way.

[william 10]

When the complaint was made against Microsoft, they had 97+% of the desktop market place and where preventing other browser being installed, completely different to Google. I notice my IOS friends all use Google so it cannot be that hard to install a search client on a smartphone.

At the time I never saw Microsoft advertising competitive products in there market place, I note that bing is available in the Google play store.

[Sirius Lee]

Microsoft did not 'prevent' any application running on windows. What the DoJ and the States Attorneys General claimed was that Microsoft used it position as owner of the operating system to push Internet Explorer. Many people never knew there was another alternative. Others however did know and had the choice to use an alternative. The EU commission came to the same conclusion years later.

The situation now is similar. Except that Google appear to be arguing that it is not they who are providing only one option, it is the handset manufacturers.

[Mikel]

97% of the desktop

Also, at the time mobile wasn't a significant share. The desktop was pretty much the only choice.

[David 164]

Four difference, 1: Microsoft had a much high market penetration. 2: There was actually no way to remove IE from Windows. 3: Google has lots of very rich and well resource competitors, Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry and others 4: Mobile phone networks can always use the open source version of android and avoid having to use Google version of Android and do whatever they want and install whatever crapware they want to force onto their customers, like Amazon has done and several Chinese and Russians companies have done.

[jonathanb]

On the desktop, Bing is usually the default and most people do change it to Google. Often they have to ask someone who knows about computers to do it for them, but they do make the effort to do it.

[DryBones]

So wait... Are they trying to sue Google because users are (fat dumb and) happy with Google search?

Good lord, I think they are. If I want something else, I search for "search" in the Play Store, job done.

And no, I don't want to. Some monopolies come because everyone else is rubbish.

[veti]

How does that differ from the argument Microsoft were making about IE, back in the day? "Sure you can install Firefox or Opera, but few of our users do because they're perfectly happy with our product."

It didn't save Microsoft from antitrust action then, I don't see why it should be allowed to avail Google any better today.

[DryBones]

I think the issue would revolve around the effect that the element has.

Back during the period that the antitrust action took place against Microsoft, IE was not only not standards compliant, but it was seriously not compliant, to the degree that a website that looked right in IE didn't work at all for anything else, including those that followed the standard. This meant that it was likely that most sites would look right on IE, but wrong other browsers unless the owners had implemented detection and presentation of separate pages/files for the browsers. It was a deliberate act, adding functions and features that aren't in the standards to break compatibility with other browsers.

Contrast that with the search issue. Different search site/plugin is going to return different results, with different priorities. Google started as a webpage, and got to be the site of choice for search. They work based on content. Search Engine Optimization got to be a thing, and if I recall properly, it's against the rules with Google. Your content should be your content, and it should be relevant, and you shouldn't be stashing a bunch of keywords to push your ranking up. Sites get caught misbehaving, get dropped in ranking until they clean up the fake bullshit they put in to push themselves up.

Not sure that you can really compare deliberately breaking standards and by extension sites, and thus making other browsers not render them properly... with crawling sites and ranking them, and demoting them if they try to fake out the rating system. Google is just doing what it does, search, and there really are other choices. I presume the other search engines do similar in terms of ranking and demotion... or maybe not, if they return a lot of keyword-bait sites at the top.

[Anonymous Coward]

SEO "against the rules" with Google?

That would have the same effect as Google making it illegal to send spam to a gmail address. Google is always fighting a battle with the SEO guys, as does Bing, Baidu and so forth.

There are no "standards" for search engines in the way there is for the web. There's some user expectancy of quality results, but that's the same as it was for browsers. For a browser the average user didn't know or care about standards, they cared whether the site displayed correctly and that's why a lot of people saw no reason to leave IE. It rendered pages well, Netscape sometimes rendered them poorly. They didn't know the reason, to them it meant "IE is better".

If Google only provided search they'd have a better argument, but they sell ads that are shown in the search results, and offer services that compete with the services other provide that people will search for. You're really reaching trying to draw some big distinction between what Microsoft did and what Google is doing. They aren't exactly the same, but they're a lot closer than you want to believe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: SEO "against the rules" with Google?

"You're really reaching trying to draw some big distinction between what Microsoft did and what Google is doing. They aren't exactly the same, but they're a lot closer than you want to believe."

They are nowhere near the same. Back in the day there was effectively, for nearly everyone, no choice other than to buy a Windows PC. Businesses used it, nearly all PCs in a computer store were Windows based. Apple was being bailed out by Microsoft, Linux was solely in the hands of the few that knew.

It was almost impossible to switch as well, business apps (non-mainframe/unix style) were pretty much exclusively WIndows as were most home products and games. Therefore windows had gained a near-monopoly on people's desktops and they were starting to manipulate that fact by restricting anyone else either with exclusive APIs or creating their own standards. In the browser sphere IE came preinstalled, IE was the one that most people knew about and IE was the only one that would work on many sites which claimed "This site is best viewed using IE" Or "this site requires IE".

Google on the other hand appeared into a marketplace that was already quite crowded with some big companies involved and it won through user choice - often having to remove the default option to choose Google instead. Today, there is still plenty of choice and it is simple to change your search provider with zero effort, zero repercussions and zero lock-in (purely search not e-mail etc)..

In the smartphone arena there is plenty of choice - iPhone, Windows Phone, Dumbphones, Blackberry, Amazon phones, Cyanogenmod phones, custom roms, firefox OS, etc. Three of those are based on the work of Google but are completely free to use any search provider they wish or any apps and profit form it in any way with no commitment to Google.

Google have given away their IP in android for anyone to use and compete with them solely because they are confident that their range of products is enough of a draw to keep people using them when given free choice (Apple, Microsoft and Amazon's phones provide equivalent features in Maps, search, browser, e-mail etc so you don't lose out in raw functionality).

It is a very different situation.

[Richard Plinston]

Re: SEO "against the rules" with Google?

> Back in the day there was effectively, for nearly everyone, no choice other than to buy a Windows PC. Businesses used it, nearly all PCs in a computer store were Windows based.

That was not because Windows was the only operating system but because Microsoft drew up contracts, discounts and 'joint marketing' with OEMs and retailers that eliminated competition. This was done, for example, with 'discounts' that applied to all copies of Windows but were removed if even a small number of machines were offered with another system. Linux Netbooks were eliminated because loss of discounts on all other machines would cost the company millions.

[Tom 13]

@Veti

MS extended their monopoly position from the OS to the browser, no choice, then lied by claiming the application was an essential part of the OS.

Google on the other hand have extended their monopoly position in the search engine market to a monopoly in the search engine market. In other words, there is no extension of their monopoly position at all. To make a parallel case you'd need to argue that Google have extended their search monopoly into the cell phone handset market. Even the IP lawyers aren't foolish enough to argue that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bundled? In some cases maybe...

I experienced many an android phone that came bundled with Bing crapware that I couldn't disable or remove. Some were even set with Bing as default with no ability to change the default search provider.

I move to have the case dismissed.

[JimWin]

Ok, so Google is viewed by many as THE search engine. But it's just a well known and widely used tool. Users do have a choice. So they're suing because they think it's a monopoly? I beg to disagree; case dismissed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it's just a well known and widely used tool."

Have you thought that through? This could be the very point traced back that proved Microsoft guilty, and I hope for equality sakes, it does the same to Google.

*OR*, Google is found innocent and Ballmer randomly busts through the court room doors screaming "DEVELOPERS!" "JUSTICE!" "JUSTICE!" "JUSTICE!"

[Fluffy Bunny]

The Microsoft case was different because Microsoft deliberately engaged in action which forced users to install IE, which then made itself the default browser. It wasn't even very subtle. If you want the date manipulation toolkit, that comes on IE, so you have to install IE just so your program can find tomorrow's date.

[RyokuMas]

Choice...

"But it's just a well known and widely used tool. Users do have a choice."

Users also had a choice to download Mozilla, Opera or another browser back when Microsoft bundled IE with Windows - not that that mattered then, or even now, the way some comments read.

Legal precedent has been set.

[Tom 13]

Re: Choice...

Complete BS. At the time of The Great Browser War you had to purchase software before you could download anything. Before the GBW started, MS had been accused in a court of law of major breaches of anti-trust law in establishing the monopoly position in the OS market. MS settled before trial by entering into a consent decree that said they would not extend their monopoly OS position to the applications. Along came Netscape with their very first browser. You couldn't download it from anywhere. You had to purchase it for a whopping $39.95 on our side of the Pond. Netscape included the IP stack necessary to connect to the internet with their product. It wasn't part of Windows. Bill Gates famously launched the MSN Dial-up service to compete with the giant AOL who had only recently displaced Compuserve as the dial-up service of the masses. As he launched the service he proclaimed it would ultimately cement MS's IT position because the internet was a fad that would only last a few years. A few years later, Netscape owned 90% of the Browser market and Andreessen made the mistake of saying that in a few more years the Browser would replace the OS as the focus of computing. That was a wake-up call to Bill Gates. His money was now threatened and he pulled out all the stops to stop Andreessen from supplanting him in the IT world. He specifically identified Netscape's need to sell its browser for its cash flow. He then had MS release IE 1.0. It was such crap that people still wouldn't use it even for free. Same with version 2.0. With version 3.0 he bundled it into the OS and achieved a product that didn't completely suck. And since it was free and Netscape still needed to charge for their software, Bill Gates achieved his victory. In complete violation of the consent decree. When called on this point later in court, MS lied and claimed IE was an essential part of the OS instead of an add on application.

[Richard Plinston]

Re: Choice...

> At the time of The Great Browser War you had to purchase software before you could download anything.

That is not true. FTP was perfectly adequate to download stuff. FTP came with MS-DOS and Windows. You did need to have an ISP and they usually gave out a free copy of the TCP/IP stack plus a browser, usually Netscape or IBM's WebExplorer.

> He specifically identified Netscape's need to sell its browser for its cash flow.

Actually most copies of netscape navigator were free 'beta' versions. Businesses had to pay for navigator but individuals got it free. Netscape made most money from their range of servers and services.

Much free software came on magazine diskettes (later on CDs) or was available for the cost of postage from several places. Mosaic was free too.

[Richard Plinston]

>> requiring makers of Android smartphones to bundle its search app on their devices.

No it does not. There are plenty of Android devices that do not have nor require Google search installed: Amazon's Kindle, Nokia's X, many small makers.

Certainly manufacturer's can sign up to provide Google's services but they don't have to, Android code is available without these.

"""Alibaba says that several Chinese handset makers have adopted the YunOS and the company is providing financial incentives for smartphone makers to do so. However none of these manufacturers are the major smartphone brands; they’re all budget Chinese handsets catering to the very low end of the market.

In 2012 Alibaba announced what was then called the “Aliyun mobile operating system” (AMOS) a “forked” version of Android. """

> which keeps the prices of smartphones artificially high.

What this seems to be claiming is that Microsoft would _pay_ Android manufacturers to have Bing bundled. That does not mean that prices for the phones would be cheaper, only that a) the manufacturer would make more profit and b) the phone would not sell.

[RyokuMas]

>> requiring makers of Android smartphones to bundle its search app on their devices.

No it does not. There are plenty of Android devices that do not have nor require Google search installed: Amazon's Kindle, Nokia's X, many small makers.

And what kind of market share do these Google alternatives have? Most of them are barely visible on Google's search unless you are looking for them specifically. The fact is that an average spod who walks into Phones4U (or somewhere similar) looking for an Android handset will walk out with something running the Google-based flavour.

It was also possible about 15 years ago to buy a desktop running something other than Windows, thus avoiding having IE pushed on you as the default browser... but very unlikely to happen for the average man.

Fortunately, we seem to have dodged the Android Silver bullet... for the time being at least.

[Richard Plinston]

> And what kind of market share do these Google alternatives have?

Almost none and that is not because Google have eliminated competition (as Microsoft did) but because users can, and do, make a choice.

> It was also possible about 15 years ago to buy a desktop running something other than Windows, thus avoiding having IE pushed on you as the default browser... but very unlikely to happen for the average man.

.. because _only_ Windows machines were in the retail shops, OEMs _only_ made Windows machines, or were punished by Microsoft via loss of 'discounts' or 'joint marketing'.

[Shades]

Ignoring the obvious...

The initiators of this class action seem to be ignoring the fact that most people probably just do not give a shit who the search provider is!

[Tom 7]

Re: Ignoring the obvious...

You've not tried Bing then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ignoring the obvious...

"You've not tried Bing then?"

Yes, as used by Duck Duck Go. Bing is a good example of why people want to change the search engine. It's generally much better than Google with a lot less 'crap' returned in the results.

[tracyanne]

the Judge isright

Android users can use any search engine they choose.

On my standard un rooted Android phone, I use Firefox as my browser and IxQuick as my search engine. Other users are free to do the same. They may not know they can, or know how to (or even care), but that is a different issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US isn't who they should worry about, the EU is

It would be difficult to imagine a US court ruling either Android or Google Search has a monopoly in the US. Apple is very strong in the US (iOS has a shot at beating Android in Q4 in the US thanks the iPhone 6 launch) and Bing is probably strong 'enough' to prevent Google Search from being considered a monopoly.

The EU is a different story. Apple is much weaker there, and if the Eurozone slips back into recession or worse, deflation, that won't do Apple's sales in the EU any favors. The EU has a stricter definition of monopoly, and Android probably already qualifies. They're already looking at Google Search, if they rule Google has a monopoly in search, they'd likely consider Android a monopoly too and when they make the easy and obvious link that Google is using Android's monopoly to bolster their search's monopoly, things could get ugly for Google.

The real problem for Google if Android is seen as a monopoly is that their entire business model revolves around using Android (which costs a lot to develop but earns them $0 in royalties) to drive traffic to Google's services to enable them to sell the end users' eyeballs to advertisers. They'd have zero defense against the court making a link between the two, the EU would have a million Google executive's quotes to choose from to prove their case!

Microsoft was using the Windows monopoly to drive people to IE to control development of the web so they could make it depend on Windows and keep that monopoly alive. They were worried about preventing a future that might come. Courts view what Google would be doing, using one monopoly to create or strength a second monopoly that already exists, as much worse conduct.

[plrndl]

Search for Search

If you don't know how to install an alternative search engine, just Google it!

Simples.

[Sheep!]

"argue that most consumers don't know how to change the default settings on their phones, or can't be bothered, which unfairly tips the balance in Google's favor"

So the argument is essentially that it's the public's fault for being lazy and stupid but Google must be sued? If you gave people the choice when Android first booted up I would think most people would choose to use Google anyway, the ones who don't want to use Google are usually tech-savvy enough to change their search settings anyway (hence they know they want to use a different search engine). This is a nonsense case.

[Tom 13]

Re: This is a nonsense case.

You would also think that an injury case for a plaintiff who fell off a step ladder when standing on the tippy top of the the ladder would be a nonsense case. Yet somehow or another the plaintiff won and to this day ladders sold in the US have warning labels on the second step from the top about not standing on that step or above it, precisely for the purpose of invalidating such silliness.

Which makes the judge's decision in this instance all that more outstanding.

[Sir Sham Cad]

Search App?

How many people who may not know how to download another search app are also the kind of people to use a built in search app rather than just open a web browser session and type in the search engine of choice (which will likely be google anyway, we all know that)?

I have more of an issue with the default bundled browser, to be honest, and that's the same for everyone whether Apple, Amazon, Android or Firefox OS.

[David 164]

I seen four year olds install their favourite apps on my mobile, the pleasure of having young cousins and nephews and nieces. Changing the search engine on the phone should be no harder and if a 4 year old can manage to install an app I'm sure the rest of us will be able to figure it out.

[Nemesis02]

The Cost of Supporting Free Software

Yes the Android is one of the most widely used operating system for mobile devices. Unlike Microsoft Windows, the Android operating system is an Open Source project ran by Google. For those who are unaware of what Open Source actually means is that the developer of the project, releases the source files which is used to create the operating freely for anyone to use and modify. What that actually means is that Google does not monetize on the distribution of their operating system.

What differentiates Android from Windows is that companies such as Dell, Toshiba and HP, whenever they build a Windows base machines including mobile devices, they have to purchase a license for Windows from Microsoft and those costs are then passed to us, the consumer. Google on the other hand does not charge manufactures for loading their Android operating system on mobile devices. Google does offer support to companies on building mobile devices so that they're compatible with their mobile operating system at a premium not as a device by device basis but as an annual re-occurring fee only for the support. They use a different model than Microsoft for revenue generation which is primarily the display of targeted advertising. By negating, or hampering,

By negating, or hampering Google's way of generating revenue off of a product, that product becomes no longer sustainable by the company which they in turn would stop developing or would be required to change their revenue model to one similar to Microsoft. If that happens though, you can expect that costs be passed onto us, the consumers through an increase in the cost of the mobile devices.

Also ask yourself can it really be considered a monopoly if we choose to use a specific service more than others if that service builds a higher quality product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The Cost of Supporting Free Software

"What differentiates Android from Windows is that companies such as Dell, Toshiba and HP, whenever they build a Windows base machines including mobile devices, they have to purchase a license for Windows from Microsoft and those costs are then passed to us, the consumer"

Rubbish, Windows is completely free for phones and tablet devices small enough that you might want to use Android on them. Windows is also far more secure with a much lower vulnerability count, and outperforms Android on the same hardware for battery life and performance.

[Tom 13]

A sane ruling from a district court judge in Cali?

Grab your skis and head for Hades! It's going to be a once in a lifetime ski experience.

[OmgTheyLetMePostInTheUK]

When you buy a car, do you get the option of installing motor and transmission from 10 different companies?

HELL NO!

So why is buying a phone supposed to be any different?

You know what you are buying when you buy an Android phone, no matter who makes it. So if you don't want a Google browser, don't buy the damned phone.

Nobody is harmed. I'd bet Google Play even has the competing browsers up on their site, for free even. Go get one if you think it might be better than Chrome. Of course, you probably will not be able to find Internet Explorer 10 or 11 there.... Microsoft still hasn't fully learned to get along with its corporate neighbors. Then again, most of us would not want all that bloatware on our phones anyways.

BTW, it sounds like we have a Judge sitting on the bench who knows a thing or two about smart phones. Kuddos to this lady on the bench.

[W. Anderson]

anti-Google crazies coming out of the woodwork

Most of the commenters here arguing that Google is "automatically" guilty as per the Anti-Trust claim are blowing smoke out of their rear ends.

The plaintiffs have produced - according to the judge - absolutely no evidence what-so-ever by deposition from any Android "consumer" user that these users have no ability or wish to change their Search Engine.

My 14 years of age grand-daughter changed hers in about 30 seconds, without any instruction or advice from anyone.

It is clear that the nay-sayers against Google in this instance are decidedly Microsoft dupes. Not one of the approximately 35 persons using iPhones or new Blackberry smartphones with whom I have spoken hve any complaints about search engine option selection in Android.

I do not own or support Android smartphone. am tired of the constantant idiocy in The Register and ZDNet from Redmond loonies and their legal dupes.

You Microsoft a-holes are pathetic.