Today there was an event, equal to which there was not yet in the domestic IT: the company Yandex filed a complaint with the FAS that Google allegedly enjoys its monopoly position and forbids vendors to install services on the devices from Yandex. AT translation of the fight from fair competition to the area where the administrative resource is used, Yandex representatives resorted to traditional argumentation in the style of "and they have Negroes lynch", making a reference to Microsoft, but it did not add any respect to this step of the company.
So, what is the essence of the conflict?
The fact is the first. It's no secret that Android is the most popular mobile operating system. About 85% of smartphones sold in Russia, use it. Google, which spent a lot of money developing and implementing this OS, achieved its goal, making Android almost the de facto standard, as in its time Windows received 90% of the desktop market.
The fact of the second. The share of mobile traffic on the Internet is steadily growing, more people are surfing the Internet from tablets and smartphones, which is confirmed by the constant drop in the share of MS. Hence the conclusion that in the future those who can cling to the mobile market will benefit. The logic is simple: you provide services to users, you collect statistics about their behavior, you show users ads based on their behavior. In general, the operating system is just a way to put the user on their services.
There are two ways to do this. The first one is complicated, to develop its operating system or even devices, to spin them up, to fight for market share. This method is very complex, because even Microsoft does not yet have it, although they do make some progress. But it's clearly not impossible, the success of Amazon's Kindle tablets has proved that it's possible to compete with Google even using Android. In the near future, the same will be demonstrated by Chinese manufacturers of the first echelon.
The second way of competition is simpler. Without investing a penny in the development and popularization of the OS, you can make a set of your services for it, and, working with individual vendors, implement them. This allows you to get to users with much lower costs. Let the "fuckers" from Google take over the costs of developing the OS, and we will cut coupons from users. After all, if you take Android, throw out Google and preset your software - many users will not notice that instead of Chrome they use Yandex.Browser, and instead of PlayStore - the corresponding Yandex store. But who in this case will receive the user's money (both direct and indirect) is obvious.
One problem is that Google does not want to be so stupid and with its money to sponsor someone else's profits, so using its right of "proprietor", Google squeezed out third-party services from Android. According to Yandex representatives, the condition of "good corporation" is simple: either you install Google services, or anything but them, but then you do not get Google Play, Drive and everything else. Of course, the phone without Google Play is of little interest to anyone, and so almost all manufacturers refused to install third-party services. And to interest users to voluntarily install software from Yandex, the latter did not work.
As a result, this leads to such a bleak picture.
It - , on which Yandex has always been strong, but the reduction in the company's share is obvious. I think if you take a separate statistics on mobile devices, the drop will be even brighter.
Added to this is the fact that services from Yandex still are inferior to the quality of Google solutions, from filtering spam in the mail and ending with the number of applications in the company's mobile store.
And finally, the third factor is the constant drop in Yandex shares on the stock exchange, conditioned by the current political situation.
Realizing that they can not compete in direct struggle, they decided to go to Yandex to take extreme measures and involve the state apparatus in the face of the Federal Antimonopoly Service. According to Yandex, Google uses its "monopoly position" in order to prevent Yandex from reinstalling its services. Imagine, for example, you built a brand store and sell your products in it, your goods are popular, and the store has many customers. Then a competitor comes in and tries to put his counter in your store. What are you going to do? Of course, ask the competitor to retire. The competitor goes to the FAS, and they force you to trade competitor's goods in your store. While you continue to pay taxes on land, pay bills for electricity, etc., some of the money goes to a competitor who does not bear any costs and therefore can dump. This is how Yandex understands "fair competition".
The company tried to explain its actions by analogy with the precedent of the ban of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player in the Microsoft operating system in Europe. The analogy, in general, is true, especially since, in that case, the measure was absolutely protectionist and had nothing in common with ensuring fair competition. And in the case of Windows, and in the case of Android - it is impossible to talk about monopoly, because they have competitors. The fact that they are not so popular is not the fault of Microsoft and Google. Moreover, even on the basis of Android, you can create a full-fledged product without the intervention of Google, which is proven by Amazon. It's just a more expensive and complicated way to go by which not everyone wants.
Separately it is worth noting how successful the moment was chosen in Yandex. Now, in the midst of political struggle, it is enough for a company to conduct a PR campaign in the style of "protecting the domestic producer in our person" in order to succeed in its endeavors to squeeze out the competitor by non-market methods. But attempts to cover up these actions with care of users and reasoning about "honest struggle" do not look convincing. To take care of users, you need to improve your own services, and fair competition is possible only when both sides bear costs the same way. Thus, the appeal to the FAS clearly shows that in fair competition Yandex, unfortunately, loses.
The article is based on materials .
Comments
Post a Comment