Japan orders Google to stop alleged antitrust violations.
Japan orders Google to stop alleged antitrust violations on Android phones
Google is under the microscope again ā this time in Japan. The countryās Fair Trade Commission has issued a cease-and-desist order against the tech giant, claiming it may have broken Japanās antitrust laws.
SEE ALSO:Google invented new ways to alter movies with AI for The Sphere. It's sure to be controversial.
The order, signed Tuesday, alleges that Google pressured Japanese smartphone manufacturers to preinstall its apps on Android devices, specifically Google Chrome and the Play Store. A senior investigator speaking to The Japan Times said the practice made it "difficult for other competing search engines to be used on Android phones."
This is a notable first for Japan ā itās the countryās first antitrust move against one of the major U.S. tech players. And while the timing of the antitrust action coincides with tariff-related trade talks between Japan and the United States, a press release from the Japanese Fair Trade Commission states that the investigation into Google's business practices began in October 2023.
The investigation found that Google required manufacturers to preinstall Google apps and offered extra ad revenue to companies that complied with these conditions. According to The Japan Times, the company had such agreements with six manufacturers, accounting for roughly 80% of smartphones produced in Japan.
The cease and desist order instructs Google to end these practices or risk facing financial penalties.
The company has also faced antitrust action in the United States and the European Union.
Topics Google Government
I'm so appalled about this information. Shameful of Google. Should regular Android user do something to personal phones for added protection and to get included in lawsuit for compensation?
ReplyDeleteSuper glad to get this info.
ReplyDeleteGreat
ReplyDeleteThey aren't wrong. It's insane that Google can have upwards of 80% of the market and are still allowed to push their own.. literally everything.
ReplyDeleteApple has ~60% market share in Japan. Busting monopolies is great, but it would be odd if Apple isn't getting the same treatment.
DeleteI'm sure Google will make this exact response.
Deletedoes whataboutism have any foothold in court???
DeleteIt kinda does, although this is a different country: after the 2008 crash, when the SEC went after some of the people involved, the defendants argued that it's not fair that they're being punished when the entire market works that way, and they got off.
Deletemaybe that wasn't the whole defense? cuz just because someone got away doesn't mean that the crime isn't punishable
DeleteI guess the argument is that "this sort doesn't count as crime, everyone does it!" US runs on precedents, its weird.
DeleteIf you're not a monopoly, how can you be leveraging a monopoly position for anti-competitive practices?
DeleteAnd so it should
Deletethe article linked here doesn't actually contain any relevant information on the order, sadly.
Deleteapple won't get "the same treatment" because the cease-and-desist is related to google forcing OEMs to put its Search and Chrome apps front and center on the default home screen. if they don't, they'll jeopardize their Android distribution license and access to Google's adtech revenue-sharing incentives. those contracts, specifically, were deemed anti-competitive by the JFTC.
so, apple cant get the same treatment, because it doesn't license its OS to third-party manufacturers, or engage in seemingly extortion-like revenue-sharing promises
there's better info here: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/15/companies/google-anti-monopoly-law/
Apples ecosystem monopoly is like the template google is going for. Epic games in particular has been pushing against it the most, and google for RCS. But otherwise apple has been like this for 20 years, whereas android has been turning into this for the past 10 years. Its a bigger problem for android because it goes against what "open source" is supposed to represent, if the open source project is really just a platform to deploy a closed source monopoly of apps.
DeleteMore attention should be put on apple to change, but the biggest competitor who should be doing that is instead following apples footsteps.
and Apple doesn't?
DeleteOf course they do.
DeleteJust because Google is a greedy company doesnāt excuse Apple being a greedy company.
Yeah but in this case they complain about a pre-installed search engine, which isn't even an essential part of a smartphone. Meanwhile apple "pre-installs" and locks users into their eco system with basic functions like iCloud and Safari.
DeleteAnti-trust lawsuits in the EU ensured iOS can now have different default apps. This is why these laws, and the enforcement of them, is important.
DeleteiOS users in the EU*
DeleteiOS users in the EU may have more options, but iOS users in the US can change default apps for Email, Messaging, Calling, Call Filtering, Browser, Translation, Passwords & passcodes, Contactless/NFC payments, and keyboards (Settings > Apps > Default Apps)
DeleteAnd yet, all web browsers still have to behave like reskinned Safari, and the keyboard still reskinned Apple keyboards. And don't get me started on the app store thing.
DeleteThe problem for these governments is that all of them, including the EU, explicitly approved Apple to operate in the region with those locks. They also continue to approve and allow other companies NOT named Apple to operate in the region with similarly restricted functionality.
DeleteThe EUās job was easy, since they had no tech companies to speak of, they just created a new category of gatekeeper, the definition of which is pretty much āsuccessful tech company not based in the EUā as a way to not go back on prior agreements. That wouldnāt be as simple for a place like Japan as they, unlike the EU, have allowed tech companies to stay in the region as they become successful.
the difference (with regard to this case, specifically) is that apple pushes its software to its own devices
Deletebut google enters into agreements with OEMs that stifle what might otherwise be successful third-party software
so, apple could easily be a target for various anti-competitive accusations (i dunno, i'm not on the Japan FTC), but in this case, it categorically can't see the same pushback. bc this JFTC order was all about google manipulating other companies to push its software. apple doesn't license its OS to other companies, so it's a different scenario
"but google enters into agreements with OEMs that stifle what might otherwise be successful third-party software"
DeleteNo? OEMs can choose to not include google apps. See Huawei
Deleteso? i'm not sure what that has to do with anything. obviously, most manufacturers choose not to/are unable to develop their own OS, and go with android
i'm not arguing with you, and i'm not sure why you think my comment doesnt contribute to the discussion. i'm just explaining what the JFTC cease-and-desist order was about. you can read more in this article, which is much more informative than the associated press piece linked in this post https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/15/companies/google-anti-monopoly-law/
Huawei is in China which has its own ecosystem for Google services, they have no need for them
DeleteGlobally, this is not the case other than within that country for major smartphone services like GPS or app stores with thriving developer ecosystems, which is where Google derives its power/control over Android
i realized later that i think that person was mixing up AOSP and Google Android + GMS components
Deletei think they were trying to say "nuh-uh, huawei used android without proprietary google software" which is kinda true -- harmony os was built on AOSP though, which is not the same thing as the google android operating system that manufacturers install on their phones outside china
Deleteoh, i realize now you might be conflating AOSP with Google Android
AOSP is the open source project developing the fundamental code
Google Android is the operating system manufacturers install on phones
They're two separate things; none of these lawsuits are about AOSP, they're about Google' proprietary Android components and implementation, and how it dictates their distribution
Ideally, Android and a host of Google services like Location, Gmail, and some others should be split off from their parent advertisement/data harvesting company. Not a lawyer but I assume Japan doesn't have legal jurisdiction and the responsibility falls on US enforcing antitrust laws.
DeleteJapan has jurisdiction over Japan. The US, over the US. So Japan could theoretically say "separate these departments or your products aren't allowed in our country" and Google would have a decision to make
Deleteof course it's not that simple -- japanese regulators surely dont want to jump straight to "we might ban android devices in japan", and it's also entirely unclear what value google's various parts have once separated. for example, if google were forced to sell chrome, why would any third party pay google's asking price? the browser is worth far, far less when not connected to google's vast network of data gathering and marketing analytics.
the whole situation is already way out of hand and a mess tbh
". for example, if google were forced to sell chrome, why would any third party pay google's asking price?"
DeleteOEMs would be pretty happy to push their browsers like they did before Google started forcing them to include Chrome.
Unless you mean the third-parties buying Google's data.
Chrome is not vital for Google: it's "only" their main method to push people to use the search engine out of lazyness. So it would hurt but not be the end of all.
It would cost Google more money to pay for other browsers to use Google as default search engine, but it might still be "price of business"
oh, for sure, that was just one totally speculative example of why/how google could push back. you're clearly correct, chrome isn't vital to google, even if it is worth more to google than it would be to anybody else. anyway, splitting it up is so far an entire step beyond what japan's ordering. we'll see if the US DOJ ends up able to force that sale, it'll be interesting
Deletehttps://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/japan
ReplyDeleteYeah, clearly Google's market dominance is the problem.
this Associated Press news brief doesn't actually cover the point of the cease-and-desist at all
Deletethe real reason has nothing to with google's overall market share in japan. it's specifically and explicitly due to the MADAs (distributor agreements) and RSAs (revenue-sharing agreements) the google makes with manufacturers and telecoms providers
the agreement stipulations force OEMs to put google's apps at the forefront (chrome and search, precisely), while vastly limiting the opportunity for third-party software to gain any foothold
the Japan Times article has a much better explanation https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/15/companies/google-anti-monopoly-law/
What if Google didn't allow oems to use android and instead had always only made their own phones but did all the same stuff there. Would that be okay as it isn't forcing other companies to do it? Of course it would be because that is what Apple does. This is all to protect these other companies and in no way to help consumers. The way the law was meant to go.
Delete"What if Google didn't allow oems to use android and instead had always only made their own phones"
Deletethen android as we know it would not exist, and the mobile device landscape would be completely and totally different from what it looks like today. pixel phones exist as testbeds for android, they do not on their own contribute meaningfully to google's bottom line. that's where the marketing analytics and general ecosystem control come into play, and that's where all these legal issues currently arise from
like you can be as cynical as you want - i honestly dont blame you, it's a strange situation - but every single human on every regulatory board on the planet is not out to punish every other human and mindlessly elevate faceless corporations. it may look convoluted from the ground, but these processes do have purpose (whether or not they're effective, f i dunno, that's a broad question)
Regulators aren't concerned with maintaining a healthy open source community. And the ambiguity and compliance issues with distributing open source and still maintaining a profitable business are becoming more problematic as the Apple model presents less legal scrutiny against more open alternatives.
DeleteReducing third-party vendors and openness is starting to look like a more simple and streamlined business model for all software companies that don't need an open source community to be competitive.
This is strictly looking at the legal cases though. In reality the open source community seems quite healthy.
that may be true, but none of these orders issued to google are related to open source policies. so i'm not sure the concept of open source really enters into any of these legal decisions
DeleteAOSP is open source (i mean, duh, i know it's right there in the name lol) but the Android that hits mainstream smartphones is markedly removed from that open source ecosystem. although it still has some open source components. but you need proprietary Google software like the Play Services framework (or some sort of hack) to use most apps
like, MicroG is open source. The Android implementation on Pixel phones is not open source. nor are one ui, hyperos, etc.
so, in my understanding, this legal issue (and most that i'm aware of) isn't really related to open source policies
there's also this: https://9to5google.com/2025/03/26/google-android-aosp-developement-private/
As long as these legal cases add risk to an open source business model it doesn't quite matter if the cases are directly targeting open source. At least corporations won't see a difference as these cases are obviously related if the business model in question is centered around licensing software which is itself open-source.
Delete"if the business model in question is centered around licensing software which is itself open-source"
Deletesorry, i probably could have explained it better. AOSP - Android Open Source Project - is open source. the MicroG OS is one example of a functional AOSP release that maintains the open source nature.
in contrast, the Android OS that gets installed on off-the-shelf smartphones is not open source. It relies heavily on proprietary (that is, closed source) software like Google Play Services. You can read more about it here: How open source is Android, really?
This ruling, the EU in-app billing ruling, and nearly every other ruling that gets big press revolves around the Google Android OS, not the actually open source AOSP software
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a regulatory body conducts an antitrust investigation into an open source software suite, and I don't think I can. How would a company maintain monopolistic control over open source software without altering it and closing it? The open source devs would just fork it. Problem solved.
None of these cases reference open source licensing or take it into account. These cases are specifically about software that Google controls. Otherwise, wouldn't the regulators be investigating the open source devs?
The case revolves around pre-installation of applications on manufacturer hardware resulting in revenue sharing from licensing agreements that are in place due to the nature of the distribution of Android. And you're making the argument that the open-source nature of Android has no direct effect on the structuring of those licensing agreements?
DeleteThis writeup explains in depth exactly how the modern Android OS is closed source - that is, proprietary, and not open source, as well as how it went from its open source origins to what it is today: https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1815b9a42d
Delete"tl;dr: In the time since they released the first version of Android, Google has moved many important features to its proprietary Google Play Services. Therefore, Googleās version of Android, which is installed on most Android phones, cannot be called open-source. Alternative services like microG try to remedy this."
additionally:
"The AOSP source code is stilly freely accessable, but it constitutes only a small part of todayās mobile operating systems. To understand why, we will have to look at how Android actually got started in 2007."
This is really weird, man. I feel like you're not reading anything I'm writing. let me simplify it the best I can:
DeleteThe open source version of Android, called AOSP, is a different thing than the Google Android operating system that Samsung, Motorola, Google, and other companies install on their phones. Does that make sense? OK, there's one more main part.
The Android software suite that Samsung, Google, and others install on smartphones relies on proprietary packages controlled by Google. "Proprietary" is another word for "closed source". The Android that Samsung and Google install on their phones is not open source. I'm not sure I can explain it more clearly.
Now, on the recent legal issues. All these rulings refer to Google's Android -- the one installed on smartphones at the factory -- because that's where the money flows. If regulators were investigating the Android Open Source Project, they would investigate the Android Open Source Project. Instead, they investigate Google, because Google controls the closed source components critical to the consumer-ready Android operating system
I hope I did better there.
Manufacturers like Samsung and Motorola are not using open source versions of Android built directly from AOSP under open source licensing, because those don't include critical components such as Google Play Services -- a closed source piece of software.
I hope this helps man but I get the impression you're trying to argue, and all I want to do is explain how AOSP is different from the consumer-facing Google Android.
DeleteI think the argument comes from the avoidance of the point that these cases paint the picture that tightly coupling OS design with company services and offering more restrictive licensing under a closed source model is inherently more beneficial unless you need open-source to help a competitive advantage.
The basic licensing of Android was never an issue to understand...
I was simply asking whether you were making the argument that the open-source nature of Android has no direct effect on the structuring of the GMS licensing agreements. In all honesty it was more of a rhetorical question though.
Deleteoh, i know it was rhetorical. it was also nonsensical, for the reasons I've repeated several times, which you have yet to acknowledge. the JFTC order, like the EU Play Store DMA demands, relates explicitly to the GMS components that aren't part of AOSP. if you read through the legal documents extensively, you'll find they're extremely clear in their scope. i know that because, and dear god please understand it was boring as shit, i have read many (most?) of the legal documents outlining major arguments in recent big-name Google cases (i do not recommend trying that)
the open source nature of AOSP has no effect on anti-monopoly investigations of Google Android because they are different things. "open source" hasnt meaningfully come up in any of these lawsuits.
nobody here's mentioned it. no analysts or experts are connecting open source AOSP to the potentially abusive MADAs and RSAs. i'm not sure what you're trying to speculate, but open source AOSP isn't significantly germane to the JFTC cease-and-desist order.
now, would google have poured so many resources into AOSP if it didn't have the outlet for utilizing the codebase via Google Android? i mean, obviously not, but that's why AOSP still technically remains a separate entity under an open source ecosystem. that's the entire point. shit, Huawei's HarmonyOS originated from AOSP.
maybe you're implying that google's support for/treatment of AOSP falls under abusive practices in its own right? not sure. i'm loath to even research it at this point. anyway, that'd require a separate investigation from the EU/US/Japan/whomever.
That's wild that Samsung's share is that small. Is there some specific reason for the insane Apple dominance in Japan? Samsung has a much larger share (not necessarily majority) pretty much everywhere else.
Deletebecause japanese and koreans dont have the best history together
Deletefunny thing, LINE is popular there and it is from Naver (also korean), granted they work together with Softbank tho
DeleteYes it's very funny. Some people are pissed about it and want it to become majority Japanese
DeleteI think Apple is there at the beginning and when it does, pretty much every feature and tech are made FOR the iPhone. There's not much else to it other than they're there first.
DeleteAlso along with what other people have said another reason Samsung was smaller in Japan was because Sony as the local option used to be a lot larger in Japanese market.
DeleteUntil 2023 when Google / Samsung / Huawei all ate into its share with the introduction of foldable phones, causing Sony's phone sales to drop by 40% in one year.
Sony's bag fumble in the smartphone industry would make a good case study
DeleteBut have you considered Google bad?
DeleteWhat makes zero sense about this is how they aren't targeting Apple at all???!?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteThe one company you can't even side load apps and you're pretty much forced to use their apps and even if you download chrome on iphones I'm pretty sure it runs on the safari engine.
this news piece did you (well, all of us) a disservice by not including any relevant information about the cease-and-desist order the japan FTC just issued
Deleteit has nothing to do with a manufacturer forcing people to use the manufacturer's own apps on its own devices (like apple does)
it specifically calls out google's agreements with device OEMs for essentially forcing the OEMs to push Google Search and Google Chrome as default apps on the stock home screen.
it also demands google stop essentially extorting OEMs into not removing the Google Search default functionality by threatening to remove access to google's ad revenue sharing program
neither of those apply to apple because apple doesn't enter into ANY contracts with third-party devices manufacturers. there are none, it's only apple.
maybe the japan FTC will investigate whatever shady stuff apple does, who knows. but you can't expect them to combine two totally separate investigations, all companies are different.
So if Google only sold pixels and didn't make Android open to oems but sold exactly as many Android phones as sell now it would be fine, huh?
Deleteyikes man yeah please chill out just a hair. i am mystified why you're taking this so personally
Deletethese are consumer electronics, yes i care about them too, but this is not the japanese government committing crimes, it's a regulatory body trying to maintain sanity in an increasingly difficult-to-deal-with economic and development scenario
Unironically, yes.
DeleteExactly! Total double standard.
Deletenot really. google forces other device manufacturers to push its apps to the forefront. apple doesn't contract with other device manufacturers; its walled garden consists of iphones, ipads, and mac pcs, no third parties
Deletethe linked article didnt explain anything but that's specifically what this cease-and-desist order's about
So it isn't really protecting users it is protecting the other corporations. Makes sense.
Deletelook i'm just sharing the context around the JFTC's decision, but, i'm pretty sure the idea is additional, competent software competitors are theoretically also good for consumers
Deleteit's really frustrating when a bad news release just leads to sarcasm and dismissal, instead of readers trying to figure out what's actually going on. just my two cents
The idea is that it protects consumers in the long run as they view what Google is doing as anticompetitive, which inhibits potentially new and better products gaining marketshare, which consumers miss out on.
DeleteThe ruling is specifically about Google practices, not Apple. Apple has separate case ongoing in Japan
DeleteThis is a case of throwing stones from glass houses. Their mobile networks are a monopoly mess. They need to fix that first!
ReplyDeletei like watching google get slapped around by regulations
ReplyDeleteIs this really a big problem???
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad because most Chinese phone brands are better than any of the pixel lineup. Google not fixing critical issues in their phones for three straight iterations is inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I've used Android phones without Google Services before. It sucks.
ReplyDeleteI know it's the law, but you know, sometimes the alternative may not be any better.
Fact that google allows apps to open ads in my browser, open apps an store pages without any prompts is absurd... They are acting like they are above reproach.
ReplyDeleteInside game apps? Thatās exactly what happens to me with an apple device. (iPad)
DeleteJapan, give us a made-in-Japan operating system! šš¾ How sweet would it be to have such a device?! š¤© A smartphone with no notch, no holepunch, a headphone jack, RGB notification, MicroSD card slot, running an alternative operating system. š¦š¾š
ReplyDelete
DeleteIt would probably suck because it wouldn't have any apps and devs probably wouldn't jump on developing for it because it wouldn't have any significant market share or know if it would stick around for every long
Hell, a lot of devs don't even prioritize android because they don't find it to be a very lucrative platform
You sweet summer child, yo7ve never used native Japanese software before, have you? Do you want a phone like its 1997?
DeleteWill the world from now on persecute everything that belongs to America? Lol
ReplyDeleteOne can hope.
DeleteIt's the least we deserve.
DeleteOh look, a self hating American on reddit, what a rarity.
DeleteI went a full 20 seconds without seeing one. New personal high score
DeleteA big reason most of the world didn't go hard on US tech companies is they wanted to be friendly to the US, and now there's no need to anymore as the US is the one who stopped being friendly.
Delete