Google CEO

India has started an antitrust case against Google because of its abuse of Android dominance in the country in order to eliminate competition. The local antitrust organization of India just made a document public, which shows the type of these allegations.

According to the document, three Indians have filed the complaint. The document reveals that they are the associates of the Competition Commission of India; their names are Umar Javed and Sukarma Thapar. The brother of Umar, Aqib Javed is the third person. This document has calmed the company executives, who thought that some major organization was behind them.

This antitrust case against Google started about three months ago, on 16 April. It contains many allegations. However, the biggest one is that Google used Android’s dominant position in order to eliminate local competitors. The main blame is that Google forces the handset and tablet vendors to install its applications. This is the only way to get the full version of Android. A research firm confirmed that Google’s Android Mobile system powered over 98% of smartphones.

A small part of this accusation is true. Google offers a bareback version of Android to local vendors. In this way, they won’t need to install Google Mobile services (GMS). However, they wouldn’t be able to access the Android play store, which is the biggest Android service. Phone vendors can also collaborate with popular companies to install the applications. In India, many Android mobiles have a suite of their apps present on them.

Google was quick to respond to these allegations. The Company released a press statement, which said, “Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) provide Android devices with preinstalling the Google apps. When OEMs preinstall Google apps, the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) allows OEMs to install Google mobile apps and services.”

Another allegation is that Google is making its apps and services in such a way that they can talk to one another. According to the complainants, this action prevents the development and growth of rival companies. The trio has complained that Google is creating a hegemony.

However, this information also doesn’t seem accurate. With the help of APIs, every android is able to talk to one another. Moreover, Cyanogen collaborated with Microsoft to integrate Cortana into Android phones. Therefore, it is unclear how Google gains from this.

Google responded to this allegation by stating, “The preinstallation condition has a small scope. The preinstalled apps also take a small amount of space. OEMs can use the remaining space to install their own apps and services. Additionally, the MADA preinstallation conditions aren’t exclusive. The MADA gives OEMs the opportunity to preinstall their own apps and promote them.”

The third accusation is that Google prevents tablet and smartphone manufacturers from developing android rival versions of the device. However, it is logically incorrect.  Micromax was once quite popular among smartphone vendors in India. It collaborated with Cyanogen to launch Android smartphones. A Chinese smartphone vendor also followed the same path.

Here is Google’s reply, “Android users are completely free to install apps and services to compete with Google. The users can quickly disable preinstalled apps. Disabling a device deletes it and frees up memory. The user can later restore the app to its original state.”

However, Google enforces some restrictions on OEMs, so that they stick to the minimum compatibility standard. This ensures that apps, specific to Android, run on Android phones. Otherwise, it risks the quality of the platform.

The antitrust case against Google is still going on. The CCI claims that Google has reduced the ability of device manufacturers to sell the devices, which run Android fork. The watchdog states that Google’s condition to include the ‘whole GMS suite’ to devices from OEMs is completely unfair to the local manufacturers.

Since these allegations, Google has reached out to CCI and provided some responses. However, this response is kept confidential. Keep in mind this isn’t the first time Google has faced investigations.

Related: Department of Justice Has Prepared an Anti-Trust Investigation Against Google