|
|
|
| Authored by: knarf on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
LS,
I became aware of the recent attempt by Microsoft, Nokia and Oracle -
hiding behind the mis-named 'FairSearch' lobbying group - to throw dirt
at their direct competition by launching a complaint about Google's
supposed abuse of their dominance in mobile operating systems by way of
Android. They state the following in their complaint [1]:
“Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a
‘Trojan Horse’ to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile
marketplace, and control consumer data,” said Thomas Vinje,
Brussels-based counsel to the FairSearch coalition. “We are
asking the Commission to move quickly and decisively to protect
competition and innovation in this critical market. Failure to
act will only embolden Google to repeat its desktop abuses of
dominance as consumers increasingly turn to a mobile platform
dominated by Google’s Android operating system.”
and
Google achieved its dominance in the smartphone operating
system market by giving Android to device-makers for ‘free.’
But in reality, Android phone makers who want to include
must-have Google apps such as Maps, YouTube or Play are
required to pre-load an entire suite of Google mobile services
and to give them prominent default placement on the phone, the
complaint says. This disadvantages other providers, and puts
Google’s Android in control of consumer data on a majority of
smartphones shipped today.
While this complaint is plainly laughable to those in the know about
the mobile operating systems market, the facts around the matter might
not be as well known in other circles so I'd like to point at some simple
facts which refute Microsoft's (et al) complaint.
Android is not only 'free' in terms of payment required, it is also
'free software' [2]. There is a difference between these two. Being free
software, others are free to modify (or 'fork' in the terminology
used in the field) Android and distribute the resulting code - for free
or for profit. The former is being done by the likes of Cyanogenmod [3],
the latter by well-known commercial behemoths like Amazon.com [4] and,
more recently, Facebook [5]. What nearly all the commercial forks have
in common is that they do not rely on, nor relegate authority to Google
for handling user data. This is purely by design as the commercial entities
behind these forks are very much interested in getting access to their users'
data and directing potential user revenue through their own organisations.
Amazon.com does not use the Google play store on the Kindle Fire tablet,
it uses the Amazon Appstore [6]. Facebook Home tries to redirect as much
of the user's communication through its own servers as possible - this to
the chagrin of privacy advocates [7].
The freedom which comes with using Android also allows users of more
'traditional' Android devices to tailor their phones and tablets to
their own needs. I personally use a Motorola Defy, originally sold with
Android 2.3. It currently runs a version of Android 4.1.2
which I have adjusted to my needs by removing some unneeded system
services (eg. Throttle Manager), only allowing known data traffic in
and out, blocking access to known tracking companies (including Google)
and disabling all unneeded background services. I do not use a Google
account on this phone unless I want to. It does not log data anywhere
unless I allow it to. It does not synchronize data anywhere unless I
tell it to. It only synchronizes data to my own personal server. While
I am capable of modifying the Android source code to tailor the
operating system to my needs, most others lack this capability. This
does not mean they can not run modified versions of Android on their
phones though. All they have to do is download the code which is
published by the likes of me through sites like XDA developers [8],
install it on their device(s) and run it in any way they please. The
code is free, there is help available for those who need it.
In short, Android is free software and with that available to anyone
for any purpose. This includes Microsoft, Nokia and Oracle.
Android does not depend on, nor does it require the use of Google
'apps' or services. If a vendor wants to install a different search
engine widget on an Android device, that vendor is free to do so
- the US carrier Verizon has done so by blocking access to Google
search and installing Microsoft's 'Bing' search on a Samsung device
[9]. There is no requirement for using Google Maps on Android devices
as there are many other mapping applications available, from free
software based on OpenStreetMaps [10] to closed, proprietary and
commercial apps [11]. Since Google services are also available through
the web the user is free to access Google search, maps, youtube and
others through the browser without needing a Google account.
In short, Microsoft (et al) has not shown any reasonable cause to
sanction Google for giving free access to Android, nor has it shown
Google is abusing their position on the market to somehow 'force' users
to install and use their software. Android can, and often is, used
without any Google services. An Android device does not need to be
registered or logged in to any Google service to be fully
functional. Android software can be installed in many ways, only one of
which involves Google; the Google play store is not required to
install software.
Now that Microsoft has shown it is still trying to use regulatory means
to limit the amount of competition it faces in the market I'd like to
draw your attention to the significance of their attempts to slander
free software in general and, lately, Android in particular. While I
understand it is hard for a commercial entity to compete with a popular
free product it is not the task of a regulating body to ensure
continued profitability of a fading business model. Reality has
overtaken Microsoft's business methods and it is up to Microsoft to
find products and services which attract enough customers to keep up
their profits. Especially given Microsoft's history of abusive business
methods they should be careful who they point their lobbyists at. This
latest attempt to smear Android is close to pathetic in this light.
Kind regards,
Frank de Lange - Hacker for Hire
[1]
http://www.fairsearch.org/mobile/fairsearch-announces-complaint-in-eu-on-googles
-anti-competitive-mobile-strategy/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
[3] http://www.cyanogenmod.org/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle_Fire
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/06/amazon-confirms-kindle-fire-hd-models-use-and
roid-4-0/
[5] https://www.facebook.com/home
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Appstore
[7]
http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/what-the-new-facebook-phone-means-for-
privacy/
[8] http://forum.xda-developers.com/index.php
[9] http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-android-2010-9
[10] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android
[11] https://play.google.com/store/search?q=maps&c=apps
---
[ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 06:06 AM EDT |
[ Update: A reader asked how to contact the EU Commission,
so here
is the page, which says:
7. Is there a contact point for consumers on
competition issues?
The European Commissioner responsible for competition
created a
Consumer Liaison Unit within the Commission’s Competition DG to
ensure
a permanent dialogue with European consumers. If you have any question
on competition please contact our Consumer Liaison officer by using this
address: comp-consumers@ec.europa.eu
Do be very polite and on point if you do
write. No one listens to rude
people. I don't either, and neither do you. So be
extra, extra polite, please,
if you wish to be listened
to.
My suggestion would be to file Complaints of
Anti-Competitive Actions
against Microsoft and Fairsearch alleging that they
are misusing the
Competition Bureau in an attempt to damage the reputation of a
superior
competitor.
Do this publicly. Call a press conference.
Explain in detail why you believe
that Microsoft and Fairsearch have been using
the Competition Bureau for
Anti-Competitive purposes. Make sure you prominently
mention
Microsofts's fading OS market share (below 24%) and that the reporters
hear this. Answer the inevitable questions, yes, this includes tablets and
smart phones.
Use the system to fight
back.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
PS: If you feel they
aren't paying attention, start a rumor that Femen
protestors will show up. If
you can get Femen protestors...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
