This week sees the ‘FairSearch’ group, comprising Microsoft, Oracle, Nokia and others, take issue with Google at the European Commission. Their complaint is a familiar one these days; that a competitor is abusing its dominance of a market.
When Microsoft were in the dock recently on the same charge, it was for ‘imposing’ Internet Explorer (IE) on the poor unsuspecting user. With Google, the accusation is that they are foisting their own apps and services on users by getting manufacturers to pre-load them on Android devices.
Many would argue that Google’s services, like Maps and YouTube, are very good. They may in fact be the best available at the moment. So is the FairSearch complaint just sour grapes?
Well, maybe it is a bit.
But there is a valid point as well, and it is seen easiest in the context of the Microsoft Internet Explorer case. It was held that automatically installing IE along with Windows was anti-competitive. At the time, IE was seen by many as having lost ground to newer and better browsers and therefore it could be argued that Microsoft were acting to prevent users from installing those better browsers by giving them IE by default and not proactively offering a choice. A protectionist stance.
I suspect that had IE clearly been the best browser around at the time the case originally went to court, there would have been less sympathy for their competitor’s cause. It too would have seemed like sour grapes.
So where does this leave us?
It’s interesting to note that one consequence of the IE case was that Microsoft invested in making their browser a whole lot better. This suggests that quashing so-called anticompetitive behaviour is a great way of spurring the guilty party to make their products better. If the market is operating freely, then everyone has to compete on the merits of their product, not selling by stealth.
In the case of Google, their products are already arguably the best on the market anyway. So what will be the consequences to the user if they are forced to stop bundling them with Android?
We’ll be buying phones and tablets with a poorer out-of-the-box experience, with no obvious up-side. Everyone will go straight to the Play Store ™ and install the same apps they used to get pre-loaded, and likely complain about it.
So the user loses out initially. Nevertheless, it will make it easier for competitor’s alternative apps and services to get traction in the marketplace. This will keep the pressure up on Google to maintain the quality of their products while offering choice and opening the door to companies with an eye on stealing Google’s crown in various areas.
Bundling is coming to be seen generally as anti-competitive and bad for the market.
We should take great care before we consign this approach to history. Google ‘give away’ Android to manufacturers, a policy that is likely to change if they can’t leverage revenue through bundled apps and services. The end-user may find themselves paying more for a handset, perhaps even paying for system software upgrades in the future. What do we gain by weakening Google?
So finally, this is where we find the difference between what Microsoft did with IE and what Google are doing with Maps and YouTube.
Microsoft were selling the platform, Google are giving theirs away as a way of selling their services. Two very different business models.
We should no more tell Google not to bundle their apps than we should tell Microsoft to give away Windows for free.
My final observation is this. You know you’ve made it to the top of the pyramid when your competitors start dragging you through the courts. It seems that to be a successful tech giant, you need to be good, but not too good.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
