Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

SILICON SILIC CHIP www.siliconchip.com.au Editor Emeritus Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD Publisher/Editor Nicholas Vinen Technical Editor John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.) Technical Staff Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc Bao Smith, B.Sc Tim Blythman, B.E., B.Sc Technical Contributor Duraid Madina, B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD Art Director & Production Manager Ross Tester Reader Services Ann Morris Advertising Enquiries Glyn Smith Phone (02) 9939 3295 Mobile 0431 792 293 glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au Regular Contributors Dave Thompson David Maddison B.App.Sc. (Hons 1), PhD, Grad.Dip.Entr.Innov. Geoff Graham Associate Professor Graham Parslow Ian Batty M.Ed. Cartoonist Brendan Akhurst Silicon Chip is published 12 times a year by Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd. ACN 626 922 870. ABN 20 880 526 923. All material is copyright ©. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written consent of the publisher. Subscription rates: $105.00 per year, post paid, in Australia. For overseas rates, see our website or email silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au Editorial office: Unit 1 (up ramp), 234 Harbord Rd, Brookvale, NSW 2100. Postal address: PO Box 139, Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097. Phone (02) 9939 3295. E-mail: silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au ISSN 1030-2662 * Recommended & maximum price only. Printing and Distribution: Editorial Viewpoint Love or hate Google, the massive EU fine is a joke While the €4.34 billion fine that an EU court imposed on Google this July (which they are in the process of appealing) may be legally sound, it is based on a lack of technical understanding. The judgment is likely to decrease competition in the smartphone space, the very opposite of what the court is trying to achieve. This case has echoes of United States v. Microsoft Corp from back in 1998-2001 (ah, nostalgia!). The argument then was that Microsoft’s integration of Internet Explorer (IE) into Windows had an anti-competitive effect on companies that offered other web browsers. Microsoft lost that case (wrongly, in my opinion, despite the rage I feel when I see IE) but ended up with a slap on the wrist. In the more recent Google case, the argument is as follows: Google allows smartphone makers to use their Android phone operating system for free as long as they follow certain rules. One of them is that Google Search and the Chrome browser must be included on the phone or else the Google Play Services (used by many Google apps) is not made available. They also made payments to some manufacturers and networks to make the Google search engine the default on their phones. And they threatened to withhold some Google apps from manufacturers who sold devices running “forked” versions of Android – ie, not the versions distributed by Google. According to the EU court, part of the reason that this is so bad is that the Google Play Services is a “must-have” and the threat to withhold is a serious one. But I wonder if these people have ever travelled to China. All Google services are blocked in mainland China. As a result, Android phones sold in China don’t include any apps which rely on them, or the Google search features. And yet Android phones are incredibly popular in China, with over half a billion sold last year. And having these Google apps on your phone hardly locks you into using them. It’s dead easy to install a different browser or select a different default search engine. You can disable the Play Store on day one and simply download and install app packages manually from web pages, if you want. There’s absolutely nothing stopping you. Part of the complaint was that 95% of Android users use Google search, which the EU court thinks indicates that they are somehow locked in. Maybe most users prefer to use Google search because it’s the best option available – did they consider that? When I was in China and couldn’t access Google search, I tried several alternatives and found them very poor by comparison. I’m of two minds about Google as a company. Many of their products are amazing but their corporate culture appears to be quite toxic and they seem to allow politics to invade their decision making in troubling ways. But I still don’t see how this fine can be justified. The logic of the court simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It makes the whole thing look like a shakedown. It is quite reasonable that they expect vendors to bundle some of their apps on phones if they are going to have free use of their operating system. The alternative would be to charge manufacturers to use Android, which I expect would increase the cost of phones. That’s hardly helping consumers and it is likely to have an impact outside of the EU too. While I can certainly see how some of the restrictions that Google have placed on the use of Android could be seen as mildly anti-competitive, they also have the beneficial effect of providing standardisation across multiple generations of smartphones, avoiding a fragmented nightmare of different, incompatible versions of the operating system and software. So on balance, I think Google should be rewarded for providing Apple some competition and giving consumers more options, not punished. Nicholas Vinen Derby Street, Silverwater, NSW 2148. 2 Silicon Chip Australia’s electronics magazine siliconchip.com.au