Schlagwort: Public Policy

  • Google’s legislative proposal for keeping kids safe onlineGoogle’s legislative proposal for keeping kids safe onlineDirector

    Google’s legislative proposal for keeping kids safe onlineGoogle’s legislative proposal for keeping kids safe onlineDirector

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Everyone wants to protect kids and teens online, and make sure they engage with age-appropriate content, but how it’s done matters. There are a variety of fast-moving legislative proposals being pushed by Meta and other companies in an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe to app stores. These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act. Google is proposing a more comprehensive legislative framework that shares responsibility between app stores and developers, and protects children’s privacy and the decision rights of parents.

    Where current legislative proposals fall short

    One example of concerning legislation is Utah’s App Store Accountability Act. The bill requires app stores to share if a user is a kid or teenager with all app developers (effectively millions of individual companies) without parental consent or rules on how the information is used. That raises real privacy and safety risks, like the potential for bad actors to sell the data or use it for other nefarious purposes.

    This level of data sharing isn’t necessary — a weather app doesn’t need to know if a user is a kid. By contrast, a social media app does need to make significant decisions about age-appropriate content and features. As written, however, the bill helps social media companies avoid that responsibility despite the fact that apps are just one of many ways that kids can access these platforms. And by requiring app stores to obtain parental consent for every single app download, it dictates how parents supervise their kids and potentially cuts teens off from digital services like educational or navigation apps.

    A legislative framework that better protects kids

    By contrast, we are focused on solutions that require appropriate user consent and minimize data exposure. Our legislative framework, which we’ll share with lawmakers as we continue to engage on this issue, has app stores securely provide industry standard age assurances only to developers who actually need them — and ensures that information is used responsibly. Here are more details:

    • Privacy-preserving age signal shared only with consent: Some legislation, including the Utah bill, require app stores to send age information to all developers without permission from the user or their parents. In our proposal, only developers who create apps that may be risky for minors would request industry standard age signals from app stores, and the information is only shared with permission from a user (or their parent). By just sharing with developers who need the information to deliver age-appropriate experiences, and only sharing the minimum amount of data needed to provide an age signal, it reduces the risk of sensitive information being shared broadly.
    • Appropriate safety measures within apps: Under our proposal, an age signal helps a developer understand whether a user is an adult or a minor — the developer is then responsible for applying the appropriate safety and privacy protections. For example, an app developer might filter out certain types of content, introduce take a break reminders, or offer different privacy settings when they know a user might be a minor. Because developers know their apps best, they are best positioned to determine when and where an age-gate might be beneficial to their users, and that may evolve over time, which is another reason why a one-size-fits-all approach won’t adequately protect kids.
    • Responsible use of age signals: Some legislative proposals create new child safety risks because they establish no guardrails against developers misusing an age signal. Our proposal helps to ensure that any age signals are used responsibly, with clear consequences for developers who violate users’ trust. For example, it protects against a developer improperly accessing or sharing the age signal.
    • No ads personalization to minors: Alongside any age assurance proposal, we support banning personalized advertisements targeting users under 18 as an industry standard. At Google, this is a practice we’ve long disallowed. It’s time for other companies to follow suit.
    • Centralized parental controls: Recognizing that parents sometimes feel overwhelmed by parental controls across different apps, our proposal would provide for a centralized dashboard for parents to manage their children’s online activities across different apps in one place and for developers to easily integrate with.

    Google has demonstrated our commitment to doing our part to keep kids safe online. We’re ready to build on this work and will continue engaging with lawmakers and developers on how to move this legislative framework for age assurance forward.

  • Why we’re appealing the Epic Games verdictWhy we’re appealing the Epic Games verdictVice President, Regulatory Affairs

    Why we’re appealing the Epic Games verdictWhy we’re appealing the Epic Games verdictVice President, Regulatory Affairs

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Today, the court overseeing our ongoing U.S. legal proceedings with Epic Games ordered changes to Android and Google Play, requested by Epic. As we have already stated, these changes would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices. Ultimately, while these changes presumably satisfy Epic, they will cause a range of unintended consequences that will harm American consumers, developers and device makers.

    These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading.

    We are appealing that underlying decision and we will ask the courts to pause Epic’s requested changes, pending that appeal. Our appeal will show that:

    • Apple and Google directly compete directly for consumers: The decision rests on a flawed finding that Android is a market in itself. In contrast, the Apple decision, upheld on appeal, rightly found that Android and iOS compete in the same market. This is obvious to anyone who has bought a smartphone. Walk into a store that sells smartphones and you’ll see the options side-by-side — Android phones from companies like Samsung, Motorola and many others competing right next to Apple’s iPhone. People choose between these phones based on price, quality and security.
    • Google and Apple compete directly for app developers: The decision ignores what every developer in the world knows — they have to prioritize investing in developing for iPhones and Androids. Developers have finite resources and have to decide how much time and money to devote to building and updating their apps for each platform. Like any business, Google wants developers to offer their best features for Android and to release them on Android first. So we build tools, run training programs and invest in making it as easy as possible to develop for Android. Apple of course does the same — competing to convince developers to prioritize iOS.
    • Android is open and Google Play is not the only way to get apps: The decision fails to take into account that Android is an open platform and developers have always had many options in how to distribute their apps. In fact, most Android devices come preloaded with two or more app stores right out of the box. Developers have other options too, such as offering their apps directly to users from their websites. For example, Epic Games has made its popular Fortnite app available to Android users through the Samsung Galaxy Store, sideloading, and the Epic Games Store – all while Fortnite was not distributed through Google Play. These are options that developers have never been able to offer to their American users on iPhones.

    Android has helped expand choice, reduce prices and democratize access to smartphones and apps. The initial decision and today’s Epic-requested changes put that at risk and undercut Android’s ability to compete with Apple’s iOS.

    We look forward to continuing to make our case on appeal, and we will keep advocating for what is best for developers, device manufacturers and the billions of Android users around the world.

  • Epic’s proposed remedies are bad for everyone but EpicEpic’s proposed remedies are bad for everyone but EpicVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Epic’s proposed remedies are bad for everyone but EpicEpic’s proposed remedies are bad for everyone but EpicVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Last month, Epic Games asked a U.S. federal court to impose harmful and unwarranted changes to Android and Google Play that would undermine the privacy, security, and overall experience of consumers, developers, and device manufacturers. Not only do Epic’s demands go far beyond the scope of the recent U.S. trial verdict — which we will be challenging — but they are also unnecessary due to the settlement we reached last year with State Attorneys General from every state and multiple territories.

    We recently shared with the court why we strongly object to Epic’s proposal — and at a hearing later this week, economic experts will reinforce the reasons why Epic’s proposed remedies are problematic and unnecessary. This includes:

    • Epic’s proposal puts Android users’ security at risk on third party app stores: Epic’s proposal removes Google’s ability to implement trust and safety measures that keep Android users safe. Unlike iOS, Android enables OEMs to preload third party app stores and allows users to download additional app stores directly. To maintain a positive user experience while also providing choice, Android incorporates common-sense measures to protect user security and privacy – measures which would no longer be allowed under this proposal.
    • Epic’s proposal hurts the privacy of Android users: Under Epic’s proposal, Google would be forced to tell any and all third party app stores which apps a user has installed on their phone through Google Play. It would wrongly expose a person’s personal apps usage – even for topics like religion, politics, or health — for Epic’s gain. This is a clear violation of user privacy.
    • Epic’s proposal leaves people vulnerable to malicious apps: Unlike on iOS, Android users have the option to sideload apps, meaning they can install an app directly from a developer’s website without going through an app store. We’ve implemented important protections to ensure users are still protected while enjoying choice in apps. However, Epic’s proposal would force Google to remove them — severely curtailing our ability to protect users from potentially malicious apps.
    • Epic’s proposal reduces developers’ control over their app distribution: Developers have many options for app distribution on Android, but when they choose to use Google Play, they know the trust and safety rules that keep our platform safe. However, Epic wants to force all other developers to publish their intellectual property through multiple channels without their consent. Under this proposal, developers may suddenly find their app on a store without the same user protections or in a store that carries inappropriate or offensive content they do not want to be associated with.
    • Epic’s proposal cuts off key business opportunities for developers: As part of the State Settlement, we have already agreed not to sign wide-ranging exclusivity agreements with developers to launch their full app catalog on Google Play. But Epic wants to entirely restrict Google’s ability to offer any financial incentives to developers to distribute their apps in the Play store, even on a non-exclusive and app-by-app basis. Epic’s proposed remedy would also prevent Google from working with developers to provide any exclusive content through apps distributed in the Play Store. This is a common strategy used to engage users and grow a developer’s business, yet Epic is seeking to limit this important opportunity for all developers.
    • Epic’s proposal hurts device manufacturers: Part of the State AG settlement ensures that any app store is free to compete for placement on an Android device. But Epic’s proposal would cut Google Play out of this process, reducing competition and therefore enabling rival app stores to underbid. This would reduce what OEMs can earn from pre-installation and placement on their devices, cutting into already narrow OEM margins in a way that could raise consumer prices.

    Epic’s proposed remedies were all clearly designed to only benefit itself. They would harm the Android ecosystem, and competition in general, by creating security and privacy risks, depriving developers and OEMs of key business opportunities, and undercutting Google’s ability to support our investments in Android and Google Play. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that enables us to keep people safe, partner with developers and OEMs to innovate and grow their businesses, and keep the Android ecosystem thriving and healthy for everyone.

    Website: LINK

  • Reaffirming choice and openness on Android and Google PlayReaffirming choice and openness on Android and Google PlayVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Reaffirming choice and openness on Android and Google PlayReaffirming choice and openness on Android and Google PlayVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Android and Google Play have continuously evolved to provide more flexibility and choice in response to feedback from developers and regulators, as well as intense competition from Apple and app stores across the open Android ecosystem. We demonstrated this in the recent trial and were disappointed that the verdict did not recognize the choice and competition that our platforms enable. While we are challenging that verdict and our case with Epic is far from over, we remain committed to continually improving Android and Google Play.

    Today, the details of a settlement reached in September with state attorneys general were filed publicly. This settlement builds on Android’s choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Google’s ability to compete with other OS makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers. We’re pleased to resolve our case with the states and move forward on a settlement that includes:

    • Growing our commitment to app store choice: We have always allowed alternative app stores to be preloaded onto Android devices and for users to download alternative app stores directly. In fact, most Android devices ship with two or more app stores preloaded. The settlement with the attorneys general makes clear that OEMs can continue to provide users with options out of the box to use Play or another app store. We recently implemented features in Android 14 that will make third-party app stores work even better for users and let third-party app stores update apps more easily.
    • Streamlining sideloading while prioritizing security: Unlike on iOS, Android users have the option to sideload apps, meaning they can download directly from a developer’s website without going through an app store like Google Play. While we maintain it is critical to our safety efforts to inform users that sideloading on mobile could come with unique risks, as part of our settlement we will be further simplifying the sideloading process and updating the language that informs users about these potential risks of downloading apps directly from the web for the first time.
    • Expanding user choice billing to more people: App and game developers will be able to implement an alternative billing option alongside Google Play’s billing system for their U.S. users who can then choose which option to use when making in-app purchases. We have been piloting user choice billing in the U.S. for over a year and will now expand this option further.
    • Expanding open communication on pricing: We have always given developers more ways to interact with their customers than iOS and other operating systems. For example, Google Play allows developers to communicate freely with their customers outside the app about subscription offers or lower-cost options available on a rival app store or the developer’s website. This openness has spurred competition and benefited consumers and developers. As part of user choice billing, which we’re expanding with today’s settlement announcement, developers are also able to show different pricing options within the app when a user makes a digital purchase.
    • Contributing to a settlement fund: Google will pay $630 million into a settlement fund to be distributed for the benefit of consumers according to a Court-approved plan and $70 million into a fund that will be used by the states.

    Android and Google Play provide choices and opportunities for innovation that other platforms we compete against simply don’t – from allowing for multiple app stores and avenues of app distribution to piloting new ways for users to pay for in-app purchases. We’re pleased to reach an agreement that builds on that foundation and we look forward to making these improvements that will help evolve Android and Google Play for the benefit of millions of developers and billions of people around the world. These proposed changes will go into effect after the Court formally approves the settlement.

    Website: LINK

  • Maintaining choice and opportunity on Android and Google PlayMaintaining choice and opportunity on Android and Google PlayVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Maintaining choice and opportunity on Android and Google PlayMaintaining choice and opportunity on Android and Google PlayVP, Government Affairs & Public Policy

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Android has made phones more affordable, provided consumers with more options, and enabled developers to thrive. Epic Games has fought a global, years-long campaign to up-end this system all in the hope of getting something for nothing. They have already sued Apple and lost twice. Next week they are trying their luck with Android by bringing a case that has even less merit given the flexibility and choices Android offers.

    Epic argues that it is forced to distribute its apps through Google Play and that options available to developers are too restrictive. These claims are baseless. Android enables developers to distribute through multiple app stores or directly to users through the web, bypassing app stores altogether. The truth is that Epic simply wants all the benefits that Android and Google Play provide without having to pay for them. And it wants to strip away critical security and privacy protections that keep billions of users safe from things like unfair subscription practices and dishonest billing, for which Epic itself has faced record fines.

    Here’s more detail about the facts at the heart of this case:

    • Google Play competes fairly for users and developers. At trial, Epic will argue that Google Play doesn’t compete with the Apple App Store. This is obviously not true — and it’s a theory that courts have rejected. Android competes with Apple’s iOS and the iPhone, and Google Play competes intensely with the App Store for both consumers and developers. We also compete with other Android app stores, including the Samsung Galaxy Store and Amazon Appstore, as well as app stores on gaming consoles and PCs. We’ve worked to attract developers through efforts like our Games Velocity Program, which offered developers incentives to launch their apps on Play alongside other competing stores such as the Apple App Store. Contrary to Epic’s false characterization, this program did not require exclusivity on Play or prevent developers from opening their own app stores.
    • Developers have many ways to distribute their apps on Android. Epic also claims that developers have no other choice than to distribute their apps through Google Play. That’s not true either. Android is the only major mobile platform that gives developers multiple ways to distribute apps. In fact, most Android devices come preloaded with two or more app stores right out of the box — and users can install others if they want. Developers can also distribute their apps directly to their users. Epic takes full advantage of Android’s distribution options by making their most popular app, Fortnite, available for billions of Android users around the world to download through the Samsung Galaxy Store and directly through their website. This choice and flexibility is possible only on Android.
    • We provide a wide range of tools and services, not just payment processing. Epic would like you to believe the only value Google Play provides is payment processing, and that that’s the only thing we should charge for. The truth is Google Play invests heavily in supporting all developers big and small across every stage of an app’s journey, providing an array of tools and services to help them grow their businesses and acquire, engage and keep users. These investments mean developers can choose the business models that work for them which, in turn, creates more choice for customers. Plus, Google Play’s ongoing investment in safety features and platform improvements creates a trusted environment — one where people can explore a range of new apps with confidence while also discovering new developers.
    • Google Play’s fees are the lowest of any major app store. We fund our investments in the ecosystem in part through a service fee that applies only when a developer on Google Play sells in-app digital goods or services. This is a sensible model: We make money only when a developer does, so our success is aligned with theirs and we are incentivized to improve the platform for developers. While Epic argues our fees are too high, Google Play’s fees are actually the lowest among major app stores. In fact, 99% of developers qualify for a service fee of 15% or less. This fee structure also avoids higher up-front charges that would burden small developers. This flexibility has led to a rapid increase in digital transactions, particularly in gaming apps like Fortnite, where the “freemium” model has become very popular among game developers.
    • Google Play is the only mobile platform offering users choice in payments. Though Epic claims consumers are forced to use Google Play’s billing system, that’s again not true. We’re piloting a system on Google Play where users choose between Google Play’s billing system and a system of the developer’s choosing when they purchase in-app digital goods and services. User choice billing includes a standard fee to ensure that we can maintain Android’s safe and secure experience when purchasing in apps. Today this option is live in more than 35 countries, and we are committed to working with Android developers to iterate and improve the program while keeping users safe and protected. Of course, when downloaded from a competing app store or directly from a developer’s website, users pay with the developer or app store’s billing system of choice.
    • This lawsuit risks making Android less safe. Users expect a safe experience on Android, and we are committed to keeping our users safe even while giving them choice. For example, when someone downloads an app for the first time directly from a developer’s website, Android notifies the user and asks them to verify they are doing so intentionally. We do this to ensure that users understand the risks of downloading software onto their mobile device directly from the web. We’ve streamlined this user prompt to make it a seamless, simple process. However, Epic wants these user notifications removed entirely, leaving the three billion people around the world who rely on these security precautions uninformed and putting their security and privacy at risk.

    Android’s choice and flexibility work well for consumers and developers of all sizes. We look forward to making our case in court as we fight to keep our users safe from harm, partner with developers to grow their businesses, and keep the Android ecosystem thriving and healthy for everyone.

    Website: LINK

  • How to sustain a safe, thriving app and game ecosystemHow to sustain a safe, thriving app and game ecosystemDirector

    How to sustain a safe, thriving app and game ecosystemHow to sustain a safe, thriving app and game ecosystemDirector

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    There have been a lot of discussions globally about how mobile ecosystems and app stores operate, and the role good policy plays in ensuring that these platforms provide ample choice and flexibility for developers and users. We have been following these discussions closely and agree that policies in this space should be guided by foundational principles that spur innovation, maintain security and expand user choice across the ecosystem, whether on mobile, desktop or gaming consoles.

    It’s our belief that operating systems and app stores should:

    • Let consumers download apps and games from anywhere — operating systems should support multiple app stores and allow consumers to get apps and games directly from developers.
    • Keep consumers safe by building protections into the core operating system and requiring app stores and developers to follow high safety standards.
    • Avoid using non-public data about developers to build competing products and services.
    • Be upfront with developers about the rules of the road, enforce policies in a predictable way, work with developers to address problems and offer clear means of appeal and redress when issues arise.
    • Permit developers to build direct customer relationships, with reasonable safeguards to protect consumer safety.

    These principles have roots in our work in the early days of mobile, when we made an unprecedented bet that a free, open-source operating system like Android, built with safety and choice at its core, would be good for developers and consumers and could support the growth of the entire smartphone ecosystem. At the time, there were many different business model options to support a platform — some charged licensing fees for their operating system, others sold high-margin hardware devices. We chose to do things differently by making our operating system and app store free, with minimal restrictions.

    We also believe that operating systems and app stores should have a business model that enables both platforms and developers to succeed financially. Just as it costs money to build an app, it costs money to build a platform, and a platform’s business model should align its success with developers’ success.

    Over the years we’ve made a significant investment in Android and Google Play, and like any business, we need a business model that lets us keep investing in our mobile efforts. Today, Android is used on tens of thousands of device models from smartphone companies around the world and more than two million developers use Google Play to reach more than 2.5 billion users in 190 countries.

    We’ve been able to sustain Android and Google Play through a fee paid by developers who sell in-app digital content, which is a common model across technology platforms. Ninety-seven percent of developers globally don’t sell digital content and are not subject to a service fee. For developers who do sell digital content, we recognize that one size doesn’t fit all, and we’ve evolved our business based on feedback from our developer ecosystem. We’ve tailored our fee structure with a number of programs to meet different businesses‘ needs. With the new programs we announced this year, 99% of developers globally qualify for a service fee of 15% or less, and developers have welcomed these changes.

    App and game platforms need to balance consumers’ expectations of choice and safety, developers’ desire to innovate and grow, and their own need for a viable business model. We look forward to contributing to the public policy conversation, guided by our steadfast commitment to building thriving, open platforms that empower consumers and help developers succeed.

    Policy around app stores should be guided by a few common-sense principles that drive innovation, maintain security and expand user choice.

  • Supporting choice and competition in EuropeSupporting choice and competition in Europe

    Supporting choice and competition in EuropeSupporting choice and competition in Europe

    Reading Time: 2 minutes

     

    For nearly a decade, we’ve been in discussions with the European Commission about the way some of our products work. Throughout this process, we’ve always agreed on one thing一that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone’s interest.

    A key characteristic of open and competitive markets一and of Google’s products一is constant change. Every year, we make thousands of changes to our products, spurred by feedback from our partners and our users. Over the last few years, we’ve also made changes一to Google Shopping; to our mobile apps licenses; and to AdSense for Search一in direct response to formal concerns raised by the European Commission.

    Since then, we’ve been listening carefully to the feedback we’re getting, both from the European Commission, and from others. As a result, over the next few months, we’ll be making further updates to our products in Europe.

    Since 2017, when we adapted Google Shopping to comply with the Commission’s order, we’ve made a number of changes to respond to feedback. Recently, we’ve started testing a new format that gives direct links to comparison shopping sites, alongside specific product offers from merchants.

    On Android phones, you’ve always been able to install any search engine or browser you want, irrespective of what came pre-installed on the phone when you bought it. In fact, a typical Android phone user will usually install around 50 additional apps on their phone.

    After the Commission’s July 2018 decision, we changed the licensing model for the Google apps we build for use on Android phones, creating new, separate licenses for Google Play, the Google Chrome browser, and for Google Search. In doing so, we maintained the freedom for phone makers to install any alternative app alongside a Google app.

    Now we’ll also do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use.

    We’ve always tried to give people the best and fastest answers一whether direct from Google, or from the wide range of specialist websites and app providers out there today.  These latest changes demonstrate our continued commitment to operating in an open and principled way.

    Website: LINK

  • Android has created more choice, not lessAndroid has created more choice, not less

    Android has created more choice, not lessAndroid has created more choice, not less

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    If you buy an Android phone, you’re choosing one of the world’s two most popular mobile platforms—one that has expanded the choice of phones available around the world.

    Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission’s own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones.  

    Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.

    android provides choice

    The phones made by these companies are all different, but have one thing in common—the ability to run the same applications. This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules—they can use or modify Android in any way they want, just as Amazon has done with its Fire tablets and TV sticks.

    To be successful, open-source platforms have to painstakingly balance the needs of everyone that uses them. History shows that without rules around baseline compatibility, open-source platforms fragment, which hurts users, developers and phone makers. Android’s compatibility rules avoid this, and help make it an attractive long-term proposition for everyone.

    Creating flexibility, choice and opportunity

    Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. If you prefer other apps—or browsers, or search engines—to the preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps instead, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers.

    Removing and replacing preloaded apps

    In fact, a typical Android phone user will install around 50 apps themselves. Last year, over 94 billion apps were downloaded globally from our Play app store; browsers such as Opera Mini and Firefox have been downloaded more than 100 million times, UC Browser more than 500 million times.

    This is in stark contrast to how things used to be in the 1990s and early 2000s—the dial-up age. Back then, changing the pre-installed applications on your computer, or adding new ones, was technically difficult and time-consuming. The Commission’s Android decision ignores the new breadth of choice and clear evidence about how people use their phones today.

    A platform built for the smartphone era

    In 2007, we chose to offer Android to phone makers and mobile network operators for free. Of course, there are costs involved in building Android, and Google has invested billions of dollars over the last decade to make Android what it is today.  This investment makes sense for us because we can offer phone makers the option of pre-loading a suite of popular Google apps (such as Search, Chrome, Play, Maps and Gmail), some of which generate revenue for us, and all of which help ensure the phone ‘just works’, right out of the box. Phone makers don’t have to include our services; and they’re also free to pre-install competing apps alongside ours. This means that we earn revenue only if our apps are installed, and if people choose to use our apps instead of the rival apps.

    Good for partners, good for consumers

    The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google’s suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators—it’s of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn’t include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven’t had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model.  

    We’ve always agreed that with size comes responsibility. A healthy, thriving Android ecosystem is in everyone’s interest, and we’ve shown we’re willing to make changes. But we are concerned that today’s decision will upset the careful balance that we have struck with Android, and that it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms.  

    Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today’s decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. 

    #AndroidWorks

    Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them.Website: LINK