Not to mention the earlier "Experts" to monitor SERPs [webmasterworld.com].

I imaging these fine, upstanding individuals will the the very paradigm if integrity.

Their in-depth insider knowledge garnered through a career within the industry will have been gleaned without forming any biases whatsoever. Sure, you worked at Yahoo Search, Amazon Kindle Fire, Apple iPhone, MS Bing and MS Lumia. These are all great companies, giving you the perfect perspective to monitor Google.

Of course, EUC will have weeded out any Google shills who suggest that Samsung, for example, are somewhat more aggressive in their App installations.

Now, where's my generic definitely-not-iTunes music service on my apparently non-infringing iPhone.

Looks like a CYA move by EUC to justify their next move. Perhaps it may be over the $2.7B one given the dominance of Android in the market.

Regards...jmcc

Shaddows, do you have a link to those "experts" so that we can confirm the people involved?

It really has to be borne in mind that the problem is Google's dominance of the market that brings this attention.

Yes, jmccormac, this, if proven, could end up being bigger.

It's not only Google that places it's own bloatware, of course, Samsung do, too, and it's impossible to remove. The difference there is you can buy a different manufacturer's phone. I've noticed in Windows 10 that Microsoft has done so, too, and it's not easy to remove.

In Google's case, it's dominance in the market, and the requirement to pre-install its apps or you don't get access to its services.

Nope, no lines on them, purely cynical assumptions. If they are experts, by definition they must have industry experience.

And EUC is not about to appoint ex-Googlers.

There is a clear precedent with the MS fine, bundling apps with an OS irrespective of the hardware. As @jmcc observes, if you plan to whack someone with a second fine, you better have your bases covered.

I'm surprised Apple are scot free, when both MS and Google have been investigated for this exact issue, when Apple are easily the most draconian in terms of "ecosystem" management. On the other hand, as their OS is tied to hardware, the entire thing is a "device" and no trade suppliers or customers are involved.

Anyway, on-topic:

- Android leverages its OS to bundle Apps, which are encouraged, if not forced
- Google controls App access on Play
- Bundling Apps reduces the incentives to innovate, due to consumer inertia
- Google Apps are as much a "supplier" to the OS as Shopping is to SERPs

So, on EUC's revealed MO, I can't see Google getting the outcome they want.

Taking that a step further- whatever portion of SERPs users then use Shopping, I can't see it being anywhere close to 50%.

On the other hand, probably >90% of android users end up using a Google app, because it's there. If you find them guilty, the subsequent distortion must therefore be found to be substantially greater than in SERPs/Shopping.

I'm surprised Apple are scot free, when both MS and Google have been investigated for this exact issue, when Apple are easily the most draconian in terms of "ecosystem" management.

Apple doesn't have a dominant market share.

On the other hand, as their OS is tied to hardware, the entire thing is a "device" and no trade suppliers or customers are involved.

If the iPhone had something like 80% market share, I bet the EU would be investigating Apple's contracts with its suppliers (Apple does use its buying power to push its suppliers around).

Apple has already been hit with a 19 Billion Euro back-tax decision.

Regards...jmcc

If they are experts, by definition they must have industry experience.

Did it ever occur to you that it could be a panel of legal experts and Economics experts who are evaluating the decision and its reasoning for flaws rather than simply technological experts?

Regards...jmcc

Did it ever occur to you that../

No it didn't, and I suppose it's possible. My perception of their statement was due to the context of them recruiting a "Technical Expert" [ted.europa.eu], not a legal one, in relation to enforcing the existing fine.

But sure, that is not explicit in this case.

EDIT-
That link is a recruitment advert that has been assumed elsewhere to be related to the €2.4 Billion SERP/Shopping ruling.

However, on re-reading, it could equally be for the Android investigation. It only talks about
"Technical expertise to support the Commission on issues relating to an antitrust case in the IT sector."

This is what the Reuters report says:
"The Commission had planned to establish a peer review panel, also known as a devil's advocate, in June, the people said.

Such panels are usually made up of three to four experienced officials who examine the case team's conclusions with a fresh pair of eyes to ensure that the case is robust. They usually take three to four weeks to complete their work although this could be extended. It was not clear if the panel has started work yet."

This isn't excactly a panel of technological experts and it is intended to make sure that the conclusions are sounds and defensible.

Regards...jmcc

You are absolutely right.

For some reason I thought the "Peer review" panel was separate from the "expert" panel, but that seems unlikely on reflection.

It`s an interesting take on monopoly. On first hand, Google made Android (or participated in a big way as far as i know). So installing it`s services looks like a wise decision. On the other hand, Microsoft (which installs his Edge/Explorer everywhere)