Google is changing the way it licenses its suite of Android apps in Europe, leading the company to charge a licensing fee for the Play Store and other Google apps for the first time.
The changes come in response to a July ruling by the European Commission, which fined the company $5 billion for antitrust violations and ordered it to stop “illegally tying” Chrome and search apps to Android.
Google hasn’t historically charged for Android and its apps because of the revenue brought in through Chrome and search. But splitting them up changes the equation, so companies will now find themselves paying for things — like the Play Store — that we generally consider to be core parts of Android, but are in reality Google services.
The base Android operating system will remain free and open-source, but if phone and tablet manufacturers want Google’s apps and the Play Store, they’ll have to pay a license fee in Europe. And they’ll now be able to license Chrome and search separately, rather than being required to accept everything as a bundle.
To break it down:
- Android, more formally known as AOSP, or Android Open Source Project, is free.
- The Play Store and many of Google’s other apps, like Gmail, Google Maps, and YouTube, will be bundled together under a paid licensing agreement.
- Chrome, in a bundle with the Google Search app, can be added on top of that agreement for free, but it isn’t required.
It is not yet clear how much the fees will be. But one way or another, device makers have to pay if they want any of these Google services.
Device makers have three options here: make a phone without the Play Store or any other Google apps; make a phone with the Play Store and all Google apps but Chrome and search; and make a phone with all those apps, like most Android phones that ship today. It’s really only that middle option that’s new — but it’s a big deal for Google, which could lose a huge revenue stream, and for competing browser and search engines, which have an opportunity to get key placement on devices in their stead.
“Since the pre-installation of Google Search and Chrome together with our other apps helped us fund the development and free distribution of Android, we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the [European Economic Area],” writes Hiroshi Lockheimer, who leads Android.
There is one other key change happening here. In the past, Google required that companies building phones or tablets that included the Play Store only build phones and tablets that included the Play Store — they couldn’t make other devices with a forked version of Android. Now, that’ll be allowed. So if Samsung wants to ship both the regular Galaxy S9 with Google’s Play Store and some whackadoo Galaxy phone that runs, say, Amazon’s Fire OS, it can now do that in Europe.
Lockheimer clarifies that Android more broadly will remain free and open source. These changes only affect the Google products that are traditionally bundled with the OS. If companies don’t want to pay, they can still ship a device without any of Google’s apps and services, as Amazon has long done and as already happens in China, where Google doesn’t operate.
But the Play Store is likely to keep phone and tablet makers attached to Google, since it’s where users can access the vast majority of Android apps. And since there is no way to get the Play Store and Google’s apps in Europe without paying the license fee anymore, it’s likely that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher device prices.
That said, Google is appealing the European Commission’s ruling. Ultimately, it doesn’t want to have to split up Android, Chrome, and search. But for the time being, it has to comply with the commission’s decision, and it’s going to put these changes into place starting October 29th.
A spokesperson for the European Commission said that Google isn’t required to charge for its apps or the Play Store, and that it’s Google’s responsibility to change its policies in a way that complies with the ruling. “The Commission will closely monitor Google’s compliance to ensure that the remedy is effective and respects the decision,” the spokesperson said. They added that the decision is meant to allow other browsers and search engines to “compete on the merits with Google for pre-installation on Android devices.”
Update, 2:05PM ET: Added details around Google’s licensing terms for the Play Store and apps.
Correction and update, 4:33PM ET: Corrected and clarified licensing terms for the Play Store and apps. The article previously stated that Chrome and search could be included without licensing the Play Store; they cannot. They do not include a licensing fee, either. The article also stated that Google apps could be installed on forked versions of Android; that was incorrect — instead, manufacturers are allowed to sell separate forked devices.
Comments
Seems a reasonable response to be fair.
By theratchetnclank on 10.16.18 1:33pm
Agreed. To the EC – beware of what you ask for, you might just get it.
By megatomic70 on 10.16.18 1:39pm
→ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/23/how-google-controls-androids-open-source
It’s actually very good news for manufacturers – they will be paying less or even nothing. Plus now they are not forced to install Google apps.
So article is kinda misleading.
By famikon on 10.16.18 2:30pm
Aren’t those patent, so why would they not need to pay for them anymore?
By Dreka on 10.16.18 2:59pm
Not really, the fees were really around testing your device. A lot of small manufacturers simply do not have the infrastructure in place to run the required Android Compatibility Test Suite to get GMS certification.
This is not good news for manufacturers for various reasons. The main one being You are still going to have to do compatibility test if you want any of Google services. That cost does not go away. Manufacturers will now have to pay an additional licensing fee to Google depending on the type of bundle they select. So they will be paying more for less.
By hecareth on 10.16.18 3:13pm
They already pay a fee. This means that they don’t have to accept the take-it-or-leave-it Google Android only product and rules.
It’s honestly a smart ruling. Europe really does have their shit together. Whereas American politicians just scold the corporations publicly and take bribes and do nothing. No privacy laws, no real antitrust power, so monopolies have grown from nearly nothing in the 80s to nearly the whole market now.
By nico_mach on 10.17.18 7:27am
We will see how smart EU consumers think it is when the price of devices goes up or suddenly they don’t have apps like YouTube on their phone anymore.
By hecareth on 10.17.18 11:58am
Ermm… you do realize that anyone who buys a phone without Youtube bundled will be able to effortlessly install it on their phones should they choose to do so?
By HamsterHuey on 10.18.18 1:54pm
Running on what? All Google apps require Google Play Services. You’re not installing jack without it.
By Dante of the Inferno on 10.18.18 7:04pm
The OEM can preinstall a web app lol.
By VisionaryShaolin on 10.29.18 2:57pm
That’s a very sketchy report you link to. The third party testing facilities aren’t charging a license fee, they are charging a testing fee, which then allows the OEM to get a license.
By starxd on 10.16.18 3:34pm
It’s not that simple. Google’s been steadily replacing a lot of Android’s open source infrastructure with closed and proprietary code tied to to Google’s Play applications.
So if a phone doesn’t have Play apps then a good many of the APIs an app needs to function and integrate into a modern Android environment simply don’t exist and that app developer then needed to write a bunch of code to replace the missing functionality, just do without, or simply have their app refuse to run on anything but an "approved" device.
For a while now, manufacturers couldn’t make a modern Android smartphone without licensing Google Play… and now that that requirement is in place, Google’s now making them pay for the privilege.
But hey, "free and open" and "do no evil", right?
By hmlong on 10.16.18 7:36pm
you can ask the butt hurt asshats in brussels. they are the ones forcing the issue, not el goog.
this apparently make things less anti-competitive. for who? I guess some euro mobile OS manufacturer who don’t piggyback on ASOP, whose staff commute on environmentally friendly UFO’s powered by Unicorn shit… and maybe Putin paid them to push yandex…
By blahness on 10.17.18 2:29am
I’m tempted to say "this is a lie", but I’ll settle for "this is an inaccurate statement."
AOSP is well and dandy, and works fine, and is modern Android, thank you. You can visit xda to see a ton of AOSP based roms and choose whether you install Gapps on them or not. The thing is, Google’s added value services really do provide a ton of added value, and it’s up to the consumer whether they want to live without it (most people don’t or aren’t savvy enough to do without them).
By Elkhantar on 10.17.18 4:48am
Blame the EU. They forced Google’s hand. Sure, Google could unbundle them without charging a licensing fee, but what’s to stop the EU from making arbitrary changes in the future and fine Google another $5B?
Charging for it is the easiest approach to make sure you’re compliant against any EU bylaws. Now everything is legal and future-proof because it’s strictly pay to play. You want it? Then pay for it. Don’t want it? Then don’t pay.
By Joseph Santos on 10.17.18 8:07am
But most consumers expect Google apps on their device and wouldn’t know how to sideload them.
By louisnvrr on 10.17.18 9:55am
They don’t need to sideload any more. The Goolgle play store is in most countries if I am not mistaken.
By Tim Tringle Jr. on 10.17.18 10:35am
In fact, many manufacturers like Samsung, for example, would be glad to use alternative apps. They haven’t allowed to do this before, because of contract obligations.
By famikon on 10.16.18 2:35pm
You clearly have not every owned a Samsung phone in the last few years (at least in the US). Samsung has always had a lot of alternative apps as the default – Samsung browser, Samsung music app, Samsung email app, Samsung calender app, Samsung payment app – it even had two other app stores (Samsung app store and Amazon app stores). They are the default… BUT Google does force Samsung to keep all of the Google variants inside a single folder on the front page so the user can easily switch to them if they want and Samsung does allow you to disable most of it’s app… except for Samsung Pay. Every month the security update re-enables Samsung Pay and I get notifications from it until I disabled it (until the next month).
By android_alpaca on 10.16.18 2:46pm
true BUT it could also be a good thing because now manufacturers wont need to pre install the google apps as they did in the past. Lets users decide what to install.
We’ll see how this turns out because if they start ripping off customers (ie charging excceive handset prices) then it will force a lot of people into the IOS camp.
By number1024 on 10.17.18 2:31am
Yup. "If it’s free you aren’t allowed to control it" was what the EU essentially said. So now they have to pay for it.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
By InnocentEd on 10.16.18 2:04pm
but now you have the chance to not pay them and to not include them… so I dont know who could be the biggest loser here.
If phones come with pre-installed apps but not with google play store… some people, non tech users won’t be able to install google play store or they will have to llook themselves for the app to install it… it will also give more opportunities for other stores to be there and be installed. So more competition…
You shouldnt be fed pizza all the time, it can make you fat and sick. It is good to have other options.
By AndrewGa on 10.16.18 3:01pm
"If phones come with pre-installed apps but not with google play store…"
This was being done already, and is mentioned in the article: "And companies can choose to ship a device without Google’s apps and services if they don’t want to pay, as Amazon has long done and as already happens in China."
"More opportunities for other stores."
Great, more fragmentation… "All new, XYZ App is available, but only on such device, with such App Store."
By J-Wise on 10.16.18 3:10pm
With this, Android has basically turned into the Windows of the 2000s
By blagalag on 10.17.18 3:09am
I would call it defragmentation because you are now free to pick your app store.
Play store will still be available to download from the web, anyone will be able to find the apk but by doing so you are also open to new app stores. Google play store inst the only solution sotre in the world so it is good for android and give something to choose from. I think they did a good decision in letting you freely decide which app store they want. We had the same problem with IE .. that’s the reason IE was widely used, many people just doesn’t know to use something else. So it kinda forces them to look for a solution and by doing so, they learn they can also install other APK stores, mail clients, message services, etc
By AndrewGa on 10.17.18 3:57am