What about apple? Yes, they don't have the same market share but their product is completely closed and until recently all other browsers where crippled compared to the build in one.<p>All apps must come from the Apple App Store. No 3rd party allowed.
That's a good news. I wish there was an Android phone with, let's say, a Firefox set as a default browser, and a Google Play Store available.
But, although I'm usually for EU in cases like this, I'm more and more disgruntled about how ineffective all that after-the-fact fines and penalties are.<p>Maybe some more strict rules would be better? Like: any OS on sell in UE can not prohibit installing third party software and tinkering with the hardware, and the user should be asked about pre-installed software on the first launch. Something like that. We got browser choice screen in Windows for a while, and it was good. But it didn't affect iOS, nor Windows 10, nor Android.
I don't get this. Sure Android has a greater market share, but people use it _because_ Google services come with it (and phones tend to be less expensive). They aren't (at least to my knowledge) doing anything underhanded to keep me from installing alternatives. I can completely replace all of the default apps. There is another major platform that doesn't allow for that. Why aren't they at least being given a warning?<p>Edit: Disclosure, I use both major platforms.
I tried Cyanogenmod for a while and wasn't pleased with the situation of Android in general, notably the arrangements with Google Play. I used Fdroid for a bit (which I appreciated), but soon ended up abandoning Android altogether, for a bundle of reasons.<p>Here's one of the most relevant perspectives on Google's Android <i>I've</i> read, titled <i>Google's Iron Grip on Android</i>: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...</a>
First, it would be nice if the currently closed parts of a the Google-logo Android most OEMs ship were more open. Google's IoT OS is developed in the open, while AOSP has periodic updates. Parts of Google's suite of services and apps that are currently for Google-logo OEMs could also be opened without weakening Google's position with OEMs.<p>Secondly, it would be nice if there were more smartphone OS choices, like Jolla, that could prosper alongside the two main choices.<p>But Google doesn't deserve to get fined for anti-competitive practices. Amazon's mobile OS drafts off of Google's work on AOSP, and nobody is whining about that. Yandex announced they would do something similar. Chinese OEMs have long had their own app stores on Android. In many ways Android is the basis for open competition in mobile OSs.<p>If you want something other than the Google ecosystem, you can have it on an Android OS with all the latest OS technologies. But you have to have your own credible ecosystem and customer base for it. I'm not sure what the EU wants that hasn't already been demonstrated can be done in the US, Russia, and China.
Has the EU even addressed the issue where Google bans all ad-blocking apps from its store? Seems like a pretty open and shut "we're doing this because we have near-monopoly on the smartphone market and ad-blocking hurts our business" anti-trust case.
I completely disagree with this. Google is too lax about what it allows and doesn't allow on Android. It could easily restrict 3rd party companies like AT&T and EE etc from pre-loading their bloatware as system apps, but it doesn't. Google's apps are, in my opinion, excellent, and it's their operating system. They should be able to put whatever they want on it, just like apple can put whatever they want on iPhones and Microsoft can put whatever they want on theirs.
There's a dark or a bright side to this.<p>On the one hand you wonder whether Google will get in a huff and close AOSP (The Android Open Source Project) just to work with a few commercial vendors. They can leave the complainants to work together on an fork where they can do what they wish.<p>Or, which I hope they would do by now, actually run AOSP like a true open source project.<p>In the latter case I think the strategy that they've used so far "was" the right one (open source but not open for debate), however Android is now mature enough that I think developing a true open source community would benefit it.
There are plenty of android devices that are sold in emerging markets that do not come with the Play store.<p>Africa, China and India are doing it.<p>Nothing prevents vendors from selling devices without the Play store, and some devices like Samsung ones come with their own App Store in addition to Google Play.<p>Nokia also had a close store.<p>Also you can side load apps on android devices without rooting them.
So much for the free market. All the EU socialists must have a hard on right now. In the end fine will be paid by the consumers anyway, and will have to click more to install Google apps and additionally pay for bandwidth. But hey, those lunatics will be happy they solved another "problem".