Google faces Russia Android probe after Yandex protest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31519068

by funkylexoo • 11 years ago

85 117 11 years ago

bbc.co.uk

diyorgasms• 11 years ago

Off topic, but I am curious. To any Russian readers, how does Yandex hold up to Google for Russian users? Does it provide an experience better than Google in some way? Do people use it simply because it is domestic? Is it similar to Baidu in that it is a means of controlling the flow of information?

Danilka• 11 years ago

It does give better results when it comes to digging stuff up. If you take time factor into the account, it often falls behind on finding relevant news. To sum up, Yandex is a very good search engine for people who only search in Russian within Russia.

Oleg2tor2• 11 years ago

As far as i know Google beats Yandex in search (readed about this here http://habrahabr.ru/post/173351/). But Yandex got more detailed maps (google missed some objects / buildings). Yandex got Taxi app, public transport app, navigator, metrika (google analytics copy) and etc, etc, etc. For me as developer - yandex provides much better api documentation and examples.

But I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being monopolists itself? Example - Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data (bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow. I am sure, that Google can protest them back. How Yandex had the nerve for this? Nothing personal, business only?

P.S. All above is about Russia context. In USA I don't know which maps are more detailed.

listic3• 11 years ago

NB: Once we're talking:

All Yandex services: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...

All Google services: http://www.google.com/about/products/

bobuk• 11 years ago

Yandex.Transport bought an access to API for positioning, but it's not exclusive. Everyone, including you can buy this access too, it's not very expensive.

blumkvist2• 11 years ago

But I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being monopolists itself?

Putin.

guard-of-terra2• 11 years ago

"Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data (bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow"

Moscow officials state that it is not the case, they're not limiting their APIs to Yandex only. Yandex is merely the first one to gain access.

cabirum2• 11 years ago

Yandex Search is couple of years older than Google, and specializes in Russian market from the beginning. It provided much more relevant results for quite a few years.

Some services mirror Google's while being tailored to Russia/CIS audience: mail, yandex.direct=adwords, chrome-based yandex browser, maps, news, social stuff, cloud storage. Some services, like yandex market or rabota (job search), have no Google counterparts.

Also, their support is more responsive. So no, it's nothing like Baidu and more like Intel vs AMD.

listic3• 11 years ago

Yandex.Market kinda corresponds to Google Shopping. http://www.google.com/shopping Curiously enough, Google doesn't provide Shopping in Russia: there's no 'Shopping' tab when searching through google.ru, and when browsing via Russian IP, google.com does redirect through google.ru.

While we are on AdWords/Yandex.Direct, is there any alternative to Wordstat from Google? http://wordstat.yandex.com/#!/?words=iPhone

xentronium• 11 years ago

First of all, yandex is a very old search engine (launched in 1997). For a very long time yandex was way better for search queries in Russian which was obviously a deal breaker for domestic users. Like google and yahoo, they have a full suite of internet services (mail, search, news, virtual currency, etc), so you wouldn't gain much by switching.

Yandex also possesses some unique domestic services that google doesn't have (market, taxi, traffic jams).

podgib• 11 years ago

I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. I expect we'll see more suits like this, plus some about bundling of Chrome, and even about making Google the default search engine in Chrome.

daddykotex2• 11 years ago

What I can't understand from this is why would there be a lawsuit about the default search engine in a browser built by a search engine company?

If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.

anon1385• 11 years ago

If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily.

Maybe you downloaded some software that also bundled Chrome by default: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-real...

thesehands• 11 years ago

Android is still an O/S built by a search engine company. If a phone manufacturer isn't making a build specific to their device and using the 'vanilla' version provided by Google then it is the device maker limiting free choice of search engine by using a limited O/S. Google should not be forced to cater for lazy manucfacturers.

task_queue5• 11 years ago

Chrome came bundled and set as the default browser on my phone.

blumkvist2• 11 years ago

Why was Microsoft split in two?

Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.

legohead2• 11 years ago

Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing.

I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years ago

I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this.

Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware.

EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies.

I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.

staunch• 11 years ago

Google didn't set out to be evil. They just discovered, like Microsoft, that monopoly levels of domination are like the One Ring.

Bill Gates is Frodo. Larry Page is Bilbo.

icehawk219• 11 years ago

There's also something to be said about the margins realized by being a monopoly. There's a reason you see fewer companies in cut-throat industries doing stuff like Microsoft Research or Google X. Research is expensive and that means you need big profits to support it and having a monopoly is a great way to guarantee big profits.

ethbro• 11 years ago

Bill Gates is Frodo. Larry Page is Bilbo.

Well that certainly doesn't bode well for what the next five years look like...

Edit: Assumed you'd put them in chronological order. Bill Gates as Bilbo and Larry Page as Frodo is terrifying.

dschiptsov4• 11 years ago

So they want to quietly hijack the setting, the way all the fucking windows crap does, to redirect the traffic, and when it fails they complained about unfairness?

How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors and developers first?

oddx3• 11 years ago

How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors and developers first?

I think it would be better for society if smaller companies will be able compete with monopoly without requirement to spend billions.

dschiptsov4• 11 years ago

Is it a news that corporations are creating "ecosystems" to make money, not to benefit third-parties?

What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?

Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.

blfr2• 11 years ago

This should probably be viewed as an extension of the Ukrainian conflict. Everything else is garnish.

vbezhenar• 11 years ago

I don't think so. Yandex is very neutral company in that regard. They have Ukrainian office with developers. For Ukrainian users they show Crimea belonging to the Ukraine when browsing from maps.yandex.ua. You can check it yourself, compare maps.yandex.ua and maps.yandex.ru.

blfr2• 11 years ago

Yandex may be neutral but Russian regulators probably aren't so it's a good moment to have a complaint about an American company.

dreamweapon3• 11 years ago

If they had balls, they'd show it as belonging to Ukraine -- or at least as disputed -- on both maps.

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years ago

No big company in Russia is "neutral." They don't have those business freedoms. Kaspersky is a good example of how deeply tied Russian companies are to its security and political apparatus:

http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/all/

maps.yandex.ua

Most/all map vendors follow local politics in regards to territory disputes. I'm not sure why you think that's unusually generous of them. If anything, the Russians know that keeping UA under their thumb and using their services instead of western services is to their advantage. A more apolitical move would be having it listed as disputed on both maps.

kushti• 11 years ago

May be it's just you eaten too much propaganda in so-called "news"?

DCKing6• 11 years ago

What are they talking about, exactly? It's perfectly possible to "unbundle" Android and Google's services. Google goes furthest in unbundling possibilities for any popular operating system, since they give away the source code for the operating system to be freely modified and be bundled with other cloud services. Amazon, Microsoft+Nokia (Bing) and many Chinese smartphone vendors (Baidu mostly) have all shown that this is possible. People pretend that Android without Google Play Services is somehow worthless or necessarily incomplete, which I don't agree with in the slightest.

It seems to me that what they're talking about is actually that Google's cloud services package bundles default Google Search, and Google does not provide the user or vendors with enough flexibility here. Okay, I'll definitely grant them that. So they want to use Google's cloud infrastructure selectively for the Play Store, but not for other profitable and integrated cloud services? Sounds a bit like eating your cake and having it too. If you look at this way, it doesn't seem such a reasonable request, although I guess it would be better for the market if Google was forced to give in.

solve2• 11 years ago

The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps. This makes it a real pain to run popular Android apps on Blackberry, for example. So in practice, very few users do.

Edit: Warning - lots of downvotes in this thread, seemingly for any Google critical comments.

DCKing6• 11 years ago

The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps.

I think this is an exaggeration. Some developers make too many assumptions, sure, but I don't think you'll find many high-profile non-Google apps that don't run on a Kindle Fire tablet for this reason.

EDIT: People seem to think that Google Services contain the bread and butter of the Android OS, but if you look at what APIs are actually provided by them [1], it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud services.

[1] http://developer.android.com/google/index.html

Oletros13• 11 years ago

It is developers fault not to use the other API's like the Amazon App store ones.

Perhaps the downvoting is not from Google supporters but fro now accurate information

aselzer3• 11 years ago

Here's what Google says about the location API:

This API is not the recommended method for accessing Android location.
The Google Location Services API [...] is the preferred way to add location-awareness to your app.

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pack...

It seems like Google is intentionally encouraging developers to switch to their closed APIs. Most developers will probably follow what the red warning message says instead of spending more time building another solution.

Google wants to keep control of all Android clone OSs, so they add convenience features to their closed-source libraries, encourage developers to use them, and force phone manufacturers to bundle them with their OS.

Bundling an alternative implementation of the API is probably a bad idea because of copyright.

guard-of-terra2• 11 years ago

It is possible to unbundle Android, but if you are a phone manufacturer that makes Google Android phones, you get very strong pressure from Google if you try to also make non-Google Android phones.

So any large manufacturer can not try new innovative Android variants at fear of being cut off from Google Android.

ocdtrekkie18• 11 years ago

It's not just pressure. They outright cut you off. You cannot ship Google Androids and non-Google Androids. It's part of the MARA.

ocdtrekkie18• 11 years ago

The MARA agreement Google mandates is very anti-competitive. It protects some services by mandating their inclusion in order to get others. Google now mandates almost 20 apps be packaged on devices, when the manufacturer really only wants the Play Store.

revelation• 11 years ago

If that is anti-competitive, then Apples locked down operating-system running only entirely Apple sanctioned code must make the FTC explode.

Then of course, the market is smartphones, not Android phones. If something is anti-competitive comes down to the market situation, and has usually very little to do with any specific behavior.

alphadevx• 11 years ago

act after three electronics comapnies

Don't often spot spelling mistakes like that on the mighty Beeb, tut tut etc.

Zigurd• 11 years ago

This complaint is a narrow one: It is focused on the requirement to make Google's apps the default apps. In that it is similar to the Microsoft case where Microsoft was forced to provide a selection of browsers on installation. So it isn't as ridiculous as some here have claimed, and it is possible Google and/or the OEMs selling in Russia will be forced to make some accommodation or exit the market.

This wasn't always a requirement if you remember that terrible Verizon phone with Bing as the default (and impossible to change) search engine.

The question is whether Yandex can make a case for Android as a monopoly, and whether the choice of making an AOSP-based Android variant with a Yandex ecosystem isn't enough relief from such a supposed monopoly.

at-fates-hands• 11 years ago

> This complaint is a narrow one

While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here in the US

Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if Yandex were to prove its case against Android.

The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?

task_queue5• 11 years ago

Thankfully, United States v Microsoft Corporation solved this particular dilemma in 2001.

ocdtrekkie18• 11 years ago

I think the walled garden approach that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all ascribe to is definitely anti-competitive at it's core, and I truly hope more governments will start addressing it as such.

Animats• 11 years ago

Under US antitrust law, that's a tie-in sale.

ogurechny2• 11 years ago

Last year, Yandex had to fight against government attention to its news aggregating service (that has a significant share of user traffic and ranges sources automatically by quality instead of closeness to official propaganda). Rumor has it (and I may be totally making things up) that Google conveyed an idea or two to the originators of the those censorship law proposals that were supposed to make Yandex manually filter “extremism” from news pages. Because Google doesn't have Russian offices anymore, idiotic government initiatives harm it much less than they harm Yandex.

ocdtrekkie18• 11 years ago

Heh, gotta love the folks downvoting anyone who criticizes Google. ;) Real classy, folks.

ocdtrekkie18• 11 years ago

And for the appropriate meta: Folks who downvote anyone who points out they're downvoting people for criticizing Google. ;)

Google faces Russia Android probe after Yandex protest

Related Stories