[HN Gopher] India fines Google $162M for anti-competitive practi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       India fines Google $162M for anti-competitive practices on Android
        
       Author : jmsflknr
       Score  : 179 points
       Date   : 2022-10-20 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
        
       | bl4ck_goku wrote:
       | Might as well do something about the gambling apps being promoted
       | in sports and by celebrities.
        
       | webmobdev wrote:
       | The Competition Commission of India, which began investigating
       | Google several years ago after complaints from local firms, said
       | in a press release that Google requiring device manufacturers to
       | pre-install its entire Google Mobile Suite and mandating
       | prominent placement of those apps "amounts to imposition of
       | unfair condition on the device manufacturers" and thus was in
       | "contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the
       | Act."             It also ordered the Android-maker to not offer
       | any incentives to smartphone makers to exclusively carry its
       | search services.             ... The antitrust watchdog said in
       | its statement today that device manufacturers should not be
       | forced to install Google's bouquet of apps and the search giant
       | should not deny access to its Play Services APIs and monetary and
       | other incentives to vendors.
       | 
       | Good. Ensuring monopolies don't crush competition, and creating a
       | level playing business field is what prevents capitalism from
       | becoming dysfunctional.
        
         | aatharuv wrote:
         | India really hates big _foreign_ monopolies. The last really
         | big foreign monopoly to get a place in India, the British East
         | India Company ended up taking over the country.
        
           | KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
           | Everyone should hate big foreign monopolies.
        
         | db1234 wrote:
         | Check out ONDC https://fortune.com/2022/08/02/why-india-could-
         | single-handed...
         | 
         | It's like UPI but for e-commerce. We can expect companies like
         | Amazon to make noise about this.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | CosmicShadow wrote:
       | These fines are always at least 1 to 2 decimal points too small
       | for their targets to even care about. Want to hurt them? Fine
       | them 10% of their yearly revenue, that'll get their attention.
        
         | ummonk wrote:
         | They've also issued a cease and desist order. If Google
         | continues its anti-competitive behavior, they can slap it with
         | a much bigger fine.
        
       | hiyer wrote:
       | The amount in rupees is 1337 crores. I wonder if the CCI was
       | aware of its significance among geeks :-).
        
       | sandGorgon wrote:
       | This is a by-product of a simple thing: Google being the largest
       | payment system provider in India.
       | 
       | Google Pay in India is basically CashApp++ . And the govt is
       | paranoid about the "Big Tech takeover of banking". Which is not
       | very dissimilar to "Bust Up Big Tech Act".
       | 
       | Google Pay is pre-installed on every android system. This is
       | basically a browser war part 2.0. Except for payments.
        
         | kylehotchkiss wrote:
         | Aren't PayTM and PhonePe bigger?
        
           | metahost wrote:
           | Those are insignificant in comparison to Google Pay (or Tez
           | as it used to be called).
        
       | tatpacc wrote:
       | Here is the link to original order
       | [https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/press-release/details/261/0]
       | 
       | some experts
       | 
       | 13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the
       | Act, the Commission has imposed monetary penalty as well as
       | issued cease and desist order against Google from indulging in
       | anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in
       | contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of
       | the measures that were indicated by the Commission are as
       | follows:
       | 
       | i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst
       | Google's proprietary applications to be pre-installed and should
       | not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications, and (b)
       | deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart
       | devices.
       | 
       | ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to
       | OEMs shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing
       | Google search services, Chrome browser, YouTube, Google Maps,
       | Gmail or any other application of Google.
       | 
       | iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to
       | disadvantage OEMs, app developers and its existing or potential
       | competitors. This would ensure interoperability of apps between
       | Android OS which complies with compatibility requirements of
       | Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app
       | developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android
       | forks.
       | 
       | iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or
       | enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity
       | for its search services.
       | 
       | v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on
       | OEMs, as presently being done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do
       | not have Google's proprietary applications pre-installed, OEMs
       | should be permitted to manufacture/ develop Android forks based
       | smart devices for themselves.
       | 
       | vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for
       | not selling smart devices based on Android forks.
       | 
       | vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed
       | apps by the users.
       | 
       | viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device
       | setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry
       | points. Users should have the flexibility to easily set as well
       | as easily change the default settings in their devices, in
       | minimum steps possible.
       | 
       | ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute
       | their app stores through Play Store.
        
         | syrrim wrote:
         | Christ, google must be kicking themselves for being so
         | permissive with android. Unless they impose similar
         | requirements on apple, this seems like a punishment for being
         | as permissive as they are.
        
           | simion314 wrote:
           | Apple is not selling iOS to Samsung with extra conditions
           | like : you should not offer other operating systems or you
           | should not pre-install our competitors", "you should not make
           | our apps uninstallable"
           | 
           | Apple is breaching the rules but in a different way
        
           | TheCoelacanth wrote:
           | iPhone has a tiny market share in India. They probably don't
           | consider them large enough to be worth regulating.
        
         | bradleykingz wrote:
         | Holy hell, this seems a lot more comprehensive than I'd ever
         | expected. Good job India.
         | 
         | I hope this spreads to the rest of the world somehow. The fact
         | that it's impossible to uninstall YouTube or use Vanced as the
         | default for YouTube.com links is the bane of my existence.
        
           | tatpacc wrote:
           | As an Indian, unfortunately I don't have much hope. Even if
           | this is true and somehow got implemented, it has even far
           | reaching worse outcome for the country. I hope that i am
           | wrong but see my other comment.
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33278016
        
         | gernb wrote:
         | Can I have the same for Micrsoft and Apple for both mobile and
         | desktop?
         | 
         | For Apple I get it's different since they don't have OEMs
         | selling Macs/iPhones/iPads but I feel like many similar
         | restrictions should apply
         | 
         | Examples:
         | 
         | > Google shall allow the users, during the initial device
         | setup, to choose their default search engine for all search
         | entry points.
         | 
         | > Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or
         | enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity
         | for its search services.
         | 
         | Seems like this should go both ways given the previous one.
         | 
         | > Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute
         | their app stores through Play Store.
         | 
         | > Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed
         | apps by the users.
         | 
         | I know Apple has done a better job of this now than in the past
         | but I can't uninstall the dialer on iOS where as I can on
         | Android, as just one example still left. I'm pretty sure I can
         | set the default camera app on Android as well and delete the
         | built in one though I haven't used android in years so no idea
         | if that's still a possibility.
         | 
         | Also, while we're at it. Will any of this apply to Chromebooks?
        
         | 2Gkashmiri wrote:
         | here is my take.
         | 
         | currently there are all microsoft-y nudge user till they allow
         | then say "user accepted"... case in point. i have a moto phone
         | that has stock android. very nice. it has default sms as
         | "messages". this app keeps nudging me to use "chat features"
         | and other bs so the "dont use connected features" line is
         | really small while accept is a big button. they dont want me to
         | not accept so they keep pushing me.
         | 
         | same for "play protect". i have decided to not accept it so
         | every often i install an app it asks me if i want to enable it.
         | 
         | same for "enable location". i keep my location off so when i
         | have to use an app, i turn it on and i get a message "for
         | better experience, tun on device location which uses google
         | location service". so if i accept this, "google location
         | accuracy" and "emergency location service" and even wifi
         | scanning (sometimes) gets enabled so these are really scummy
         | techniques.
         | 
         | i use F-droid as my default app store and aurora store to
         | download apps not on f-droid. haven't signed in to play store
         | because i don't have a google account.
         | 
         | these "keep nudging till the user accepts" should be banned as
         | well. if the user does not want to allow location accuracy,
         | don't auto enable it.
        
         | ocdtrekkie wrote:
         | Looks like they went way beyond the EU's restrictions. I doubt
         | Google can do the whole "pay for Play Store by device unless
         | you agree to install these other apps" workaround. Hopefully
         | the EU will catch up here and the US will do something similar.
        
       | colpabar wrote:
       | I feel like I see headlines like this all the time. Some
       | country/government fines some tech giant some large amount of
       | money. But I always wonder, do these fines ever get paid?
        
         | ocdtrekkie wrote:
         | The fine isn't that key an issue, it's the order to comply
         | going forwards. Read the comment summarizing what Google is no
         | longer permitted to do in India.
        
         | rarec wrote:
         | Probably. Otherwise, it wouldn't keep happening.
        
         | atdrummond wrote:
         | Yes. But they're a rounding error for FAANG firms.
        
       | riddleronroof wrote:
       | In other words, Ambani's Reliance co will launch search next
       | month.
        
       | IceWreck wrote:
       | > ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to
       | distribute their app stores through Play Store.
       | 
       | This is huge if google follows through
        
         | einpoklum wrote:
         | Not that huge. If, however, phone distributors would start
         | providing non-Google app download hubs / stores as the default
         | - _that_ would be more serious.
        
       | cudgy wrote:
       | Anyone know how much net profit Google makes in one year from the
       | India market in USD? One article states Rs 586.2 crore, but how
       | to convert to USD?
       | 
       | https://m.timesofindia.com/business/india-business/google-in...
        
         | programmer_dude wrote:
         | It's 5,593.8 Cr, which is equal to 676.15 million USD. Note:
         | 676.15 = 5593.8*1e7/82.73/1e6.
        
           | mmiyer wrote:
           | 586.2 Cr is correct for net profit ("The net profit was
           | higher by about 23.9 per cent at Rs 586.2") which is what the
           | original commentator said. 5,593.8 Cr is revenue.
        
             | programmer_dude wrote:
             | Uh oh, it seems like I made a mistake. You may be right!
             | But I am not able to edit my comments now.
        
         | codegeek wrote:
         | That's about $71M USD. (1 Crore = 10,000,000 units). Currently,
         | 1 USD = 83 INR
         | 
         | So, 586 crores INR = 5860000000 INR = $71,000,000 USD
         | 
         | EDIT: It seems like some people are saying the correct number
         | is not 586 crores but 5k crores which is 10 times more.
        
           | swampthinker wrote:
           | That sounds really low
        
             | programmer_dude wrote:
             | Because it is incorrect. The correct figure is 5,593.8 Cr,
             | which is equal to 676.15 million USD. Note: 676.15 =
             | 5593.8*1e7/82.73/1e6.
        
             | codegeek wrote:
             | Not sure. It says Profits, not Revenue. So may be possible
             | ?
        
       | keewee7 wrote:
       | Good in theory but Google's Android apps and Google forbidding
       | Indian telcom companies and Chinese smartphone manufactures from
       | installing adwarecrap has made the ultra-cheap smartphone
       | experience somewhat tolerable for hundreds of millions of people.
       | It's all going to be insufferable adware hell from now on.
        
         | nmridul wrote:
         | Except Motorola (now owned by Lenovo and claims closest to
         | default Android) most of the Chinese phones still come with
         | their own bloatware. Xiaomi has many default apps including
         | their own Messaging, file manager, dialer. These come with
         | their own user agreement and privacy policy.
         | 
         | Some of these apps are good to have while others are just
         | bloat.
        
         | tatpacc wrote:
         | other comment mentioning that "Ambani's Reliance co will launch
         | search next month." is not realistic. I mean even Bing is not
         | able to capture significant market share of Google after all
         | these years.
         | 
         | > Google forbidding Indian telcom companies and Chinese
         | smartphone manufactures from installing adwarecrap has made the
         | ultra-cheap smartphone experience somewhat tolerable for
         | hundreds of millions of people.
         | 
         | however, this comment is also related to Ambani's Jio
         | (Subsidiary of Reliance) are planning to launch Android
         | devices. And mind it, Jio is one of the largest telecom
         | provider in India with the blessing of ruling party. Jio also
         | have suits of all kind of applications like chat, payment,
         | audio streaming like Spotify, and what not, etc. which is less
         | of utility app and can be use as surveillance system for the
         | government in the future.
         | 
         | India is heading towards government system like deadly mix of
         | Russia in terms of democracy and China in terms of surveillance
         | system (look at the recent telecom act amendment proposed by
         | government in last month. Basically it can force any VoIP
         | services such as WhatsApp to verify user identity.)
         | 
         | Current government was not approving WhatsApp license for UPI
         | for years until after WhatsApp decided to invest in Jio
         | [https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/24/india-approves-
         | facebooks-5...] At that time few peoples were discussing that
         | this investment is nothing but to bribe government and/or Jio
         | to get UPI license. Now WhatsApp got that permission
         | [https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/13/whatsapp-permitted-to-
         | exte...]
        
           | sremani wrote:
           | Ah! the whole theory that Reliance is a BJP's poodle. Go back
           | and look 1986 Cricket World Cup and what is it named.. and ..
           | you got it right, Reliance Cup.
           | 
           | The Ambanis are no one's poodles all Indian Politicians are
           | their poodles. The monumental growth of Reliance from a small
           | textile company to a petro-chemical behemoth to a huge
           | conglomerate happened under the rule of Indian National
           | Congress.
        
             | tatpacc wrote:
             | > The Ambanis are no one's poodles all Indian Politicians
             | are their poodles.
             | 
             | I am not denying that. But the way, current government is
             | working, good luck with current situation improving
             | anymore. And BJP or Congress or any other party
             | politicians, especially in India, like to enjoy absolute
             | control over citizens. So by some miracle if other party
             | got in power in future then also they will not work to
             | correct wrong done by current government.
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | acchow wrote:
         | > It's all going to be insufferable adware hell from now on.
         | 
         | Didn't American telecom companies try this? And then the
         | customers eventually found it all insufferable, so the practice
         | was canned?
        
           | summerlight wrote:
           | That's mostly because of iOS where Apple has a complete
           | control over. If the half of the market cannot play with
           | those garbage, it is much harder to do that for the rest as
           | well thanks to competition. But AFAIK, iOS has a pretty
           | minimal presence in India so it's not going to be the same
           | situation.
        
         | danuker wrote:
         | > adwarecrap
         | 
         | You mean Google bundling their apps with spyware, then sending
         | me ads based on the info gathered is not adwarecrap?
        
           | sophacles wrote:
           | Its adware. It's also better than a lot of apps that fall
           | into the crap category. For instance, maps will show me maps
           | that are farily accurate. Many of the bundled apps i would
           | get in the past - verizon maps or whatever - weren't actually
           | able to do their purported job, just display ads until crash.
        
         | sirpunch wrote:
         | I hope people don't make the assumption that anything that's
         | not coming from Google is harmful and a potential
         | adware/malware. People who support Apple's app store monopoly
         | also use the same logic. Maybe the Indian government needs to
         | push separate bills prohibiting manufactures from packaging
         | crapware. But this is a step in the right direction IMO.
        
           | cafed00d wrote:
           | > Maybe the Indian government needs to push separate bills
           | prohibiting manufactures from packaging crapware
           | 
           | One person's crapware is another person's batteries-included-
           | ware.
           | 
           | We wouldn't want to ban Sony MP3 players from including an
           | app that plays music, right?
           | 
           | Similar to how we wouldn't want iPods to be banned from
           | coming with an in-built Apple Music.app client[1]
           | 
           | Google's bundled-in variant of an internet browser _may_ be
           | as harmful as Safari on iOS or, quite formidably[2], Internet
           | Explorer on Windows. But unless governments can unambiguously
           | discern whether Chrome is adware/crapware or batteries-
           | included-software we'd not get much use out of regulation.
           | 
           | [1] Please don't flame on me with "iPods don't have Apple
           | Music". What I meant to say is that the on-device application
           | software that ran on iPods is _identical_ to that running on
           | macOS, iPhone etc. It's pretty much the exact same music
           | player code.
           | 
           | [2] IE bundling into Windows is literally what got Microsoft
           | branded as anti-competitive by the Justice Dept. in the late
           | 90s / early 2000s
        
             | nmridul wrote:
             | If Apple ipod is market leader in music player then the
             | device owner should be able to uninstall the "Apple music"
             | and install any 3rd party developed music player on it,
             | this should be OK.
        
             | neilpa wrote:
             | > We wouldn't want to ban Sony MP3 players from including
             | an app that plays music, right?
             | 
             | Maybe? There was that time Sony decided to install a
             | rootkit when you played a CD
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_root
             | k...
        
           | Arainach wrote:
           | We don't need to assume. We have decades of experience and
           | data showing that mobile operators will jam phones full of as
           | much spyware, adware, and experience-ruining garbage as they
           | are legally and technically able.
        
         | lenkite wrote:
         | Open access will also enable OSS apps. Having alternatives
         | would be terrific.
        
         | gauddasa wrote:
         | But I've been always disabling (using Android Debug Bridge)
         | native Google apps (Gmail, Youtube ...) and using alternatives
         | from F-Droid including apps for phone call and messaging. In
         | fact, I have avoided signing into Play Store on all androids I
         | have ever used so far.
        
         | 2Gkashmiri wrote:
         | i don't understand what you are trying to say?
        
           | CobrastanJorji wrote:
           | I read it as "Google having control was bad, but Google had
           | been using that control to stop very bad things, so in
           | practical terms this is actually bad news."
        
             | 2Gkashmiri wrote:
             | nah.... sure we will have ad filed stores and all that bs
             | but that is currently happening on xiaomi and realme phones
             | anyways.... they have OS level ads and people are fine with
             | it....
             | 
             | i am interested in having F-droid as a respectable store
             | that has some more polish, aurora-store type features would
             | be nice things to have.
             | 
             | and having ability to "delete system apps" that is only
             | possible on stock android or in my case moto phones
             | only.... i don't have google crap installed and untill now,
             | xiaomi/realme/oppo and others couldn't do that even if they
             | wanted. now they can.....
             | 
             | think of it this way. W10, w11 has a lot of nonsense but
             | for technically inclined, there is the debloater so anyone
             | who is interested can do that and that should happen here
             | also
        
       | asadlionpk wrote:
       | India following EU to claim a piece of that ad money.
        
         | Nextgrid wrote:
         | I don't mind governments taking ad money even if they were
         | outright stealing it, because if anything it puts pressure on
         | companies not to deal with ads at all which would be a net
         | benefit to society, productivity and mental health worldwide.
         | 
         | I like having the option of _buying_ products that have nothing
         | to do with ads - unfortunately in the current situation,
         | _everything_ has at least some ties to this industry, so
         | effectively we currently don 't have a choice regardless of
         | whether we're willing to pay. This kind of pressure will
         | hopefully change this.
        
         | nmridul wrote:
         | In addition to fine, India is asking Google to open up.
        
         | robofanatic wrote:
         | well, EU claims in billions
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-20 23:00 UTC)