Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge
https://www.theverge.com/policy/2024/10/7/24243316/epic-google-permanent-injunction-ruling-third-party-stores
593 comments
It is ridiculous. From Google's reply (https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-...): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading."
It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it worse."
Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right.
If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with.
Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.
If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with.
Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.
Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing.
What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
Absent first mover advantage with the iPhone, it's extremely difficult to see Apple ending up where it is, with a closed ecosystem.
I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins,
however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Android spaces releases something incredible, the game will change quickly.
It’s highly unlikely for Apple to choke on hardware given their cash.
And as someone who’s done native for both, Android’s native SDK is a mess that even Android devs actually hate it.
Meanwhile, iOS’ SDK is incredibly exhaustive and coherent. I don’t know what your basis is for “better designed software”, but being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you? All while the competition can hardly build anything that actually lasts.
And as someone who’s done native for both, Android’s native SDK is a mess that even Android devs actually hate it.
Meanwhile, iOS’ SDK is incredibly exhaustive and coherent. I don’t know what your basis is for “better designed software”, but being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you? All while the competition can hardly build anything that actually lasts.
> being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you?
Microsoft and Google basically did the same thing, and in neither case it's really a testament to how "good" their respective software is engineered. If the amount of driver cruft on MacOS is anything to go by, the engineering underneath iOS and WatchOS is probably a fucking nightmare in most respects.
Microsoft and Google basically did the same thing, and in neither case it's really a testament to how "good" their respective software is engineered. If the amount of driver cruft on MacOS is anything to go by, the engineering underneath iOS and WatchOS is probably a fucking nightmare in most respects.
People round here hate this, but it's true.
I used to be "the Android guy" at a big games publisher. In my time the billing component had to be rewritten three times solely because of Google changes. The Apple one was written once and left alone.
We can't even discuss why those Google changes happened because doing so would get you shot, or worse.
The tech direction that was going on at Apple was enormously better than other companies. It does feel like they've gone off the rails a bit, but things like Swift are underappreciated entirely because they're so successful, just with the wrong sort of developer.
I used to be "the Android guy" at a big games publisher. In my time the billing component had to be rewritten three times solely because of Google changes. The Apple one was written once and left alone.
We can't even discuss why those Google changes happened because doing so would get you shot, or worse.
The tech direction that was going on at Apple was enormously better than other companies. It does feel like they've gone off the rails a bit, but things like Swift are underappreciated entirely because they're so successful, just with the wrong sort of developer.
> It’s highly unlikely for Apple to choke on hardware given their cash.
It just means that it will take a while, like Intel, or what is happening with search and Google.
It just means that it will take a while, like Intel, or what is happening with search and Google.
Apple is, apparently, good at marketing
Interesting, I have the exact opposite: I'm also a React Native developer and it's _always_ Android that creates all sorts of problems when developing where iOS is just fine. And it's not me: many devs in my team (and all the teams that I've also worked in the past) think the same way.
Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
I think that this boils down to people wanting a handheld computer that sometimes can make phone calls (android), or a phone that can do other stuff (apple).
Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.
Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.
I think that comparison would need some support. It is exceedingly rare that I hear any normal person mention doing something on Android that they couldn’t do on iOS, and the number of enthusiasts isn’t enough to drive a market that large.
Can I easily put a compiler on either platform? My understanding is that you can't, which makes both platforms kind of bad.
You can easily put compilers on Android. Put the whole system on it if you want https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tech.ula
Huh! I really was under the impression that you couldn't. It's been many years since I last checked though.
Thank you very much for correcting me!
Thank you very much for correcting me!
It depends on the intended use case: compiling source code isn't the intended use case of neither of those platforms. It doesn't make them "bad".
[deleted]
As of today, there is no player in the Smartphone space who has even remotely the amount of secured income to come up with a similarly volume-scaled device, and there is little incentive for anyone to enter this space.
A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces.
So how would this normally work?
--> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate.
But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as:
1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them
2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and
3.) for Android you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start.
That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, and needs to be (wait for it:) regulated to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services.
But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...
A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces.
So how would this normally work?
--> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate.
But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as:
1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them
2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and
3.) for Android you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start.
That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, and needs to be (wait for it:) regulated to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services.
But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...
What would I take with me? My photos and email will move just fine. The last app I bought was a while ago, and it was an app to block Google AMP. I’m honestly not sure I use any other paid apps.
So no Apps.
Also no iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Messages, Apple Pay, Apple Fitness, any kind of native Mac integration (Safari Bookmark sharing, Shared Bluetooth devices, clipboard sharing, Continuity Camera, AirPlay,...)?
No Apple Wireless charger, Apple Watch, Airpods, Apple-specific Accessories, Apple App-based carkeys or Apple CarPlay?
That's quite rare.
Also no iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Messages, Apple Pay, Apple Fitness, any kind of native Mac integration (Safari Bookmark sharing, Shared Bluetooth devices, clipboard sharing, Continuity Camera, AirPlay,...)?
No Apple Wireless charger, Apple Watch, Airpods, Apple-specific Accessories, Apple App-based carkeys or Apple CarPlay?
That's quite rare.
As an experiment I recently switched from iPhone (last 10 years?) to Android. It's been a little painful but:
- nearly all apps support Android as well. The ones I used (navionics, banking apps, WhatsApp) you just log in on Android, no cost involved. - most Apple first party apps have a Google equivalent (google wallet, google keep notes, google messaging etc.) that is very similar - my AirPods work equally well with android
- nearly all apps support Android as well. The ones I used (navionics, banking apps, WhatsApp) you just log in on Android, no cost involved. - most Apple first party apps have a Google equivalent (google wallet, google keep notes, google messaging etc.) that is very similar - my AirPods work equally well with android
Fine - but that took Google billions and a decade of work to reach near-parity. A new entrant will not have any of that. Web apps can do much more than they could 10 or 15 years ago but still takes massive effort.
Do you use MFA? How about meetings (zoom/teams)? What about MS Office or Google Apps? Is the new email client up to snuff? All of these are much better as apps.
Users do not want to browse the web on mobile for all their activities, when Apps are generally faster, more secure, and has all their prefs recorded EVEN if a webapp is functionally equivalent (and most are only 70-90% equivalent)
So the new entrant has to curry favor with all these large software vendors (some of whom are now competitors) and offer something for some key uses of a smartphone.
Users do not want to browse the web on mobile for all their activities, when Apps are generally faster, more secure, and has all their prefs recorded EVEN if a webapp is functionally equivalent (and most are only 70-90% equivalent)
So the new entrant has to curry favor with all these large software vendors (some of whom are now competitors) and offer something for some key uses of a smartphone.
You're right that apps can be better, but phone apps seem to always miss functionality compared to desktop web versions of the same thing. Even phone web version of Google doesn't have functional parity with desktop web Google. The phone app for Google is even worse.
If you used iMessage, Apple phones remember this and will continue sending you iMessages which you won't receive on your non-Apple phone.
A Flutter developer only sees the shitty parts of iOS and Android anyway. I imagine as a dumb carrier for Flutter Android is nicer.
60hz lmao
There were smartphones before the iPhone. I'm not sure you can label Apple's position as "first mover advantage".
They got where they did by leapfrogging the competition, dominating the supply chain, having incredible customer trust/service (with a sprinkle of Jobs' magic), thus reframing the entire category of smartphone.
It's unclear if anyone has delivered all these together. Google has dominated all other players at the OS level.
They got where they did by leapfrogging the competition, dominating the supply chain, having incredible customer trust/service (with a sprinkle of Jobs' magic), thus reframing the entire category of smartphone.
It's unclear if anyone has delivered all these together. Google has dominated all other players at the OS level.
Apple isn't usually the first mover, though. It's not like the Mac was the first desktop computer, or the iPhone was the first smartphone, or the Apple Watch was the first smartwatch. Apple usually ends up with their market position whether or not they're the first mover.
this sounds close to:
gosh, if they hadn't basically created the market for phones like this it's hard to see how they would be dominating the market for phones like this, given their behavior.
because that's what first mover advantage is in this case. They created a market, in hardware - that's pretty difficult.
regarding other posts saying Apple wasn't first mover in smartphones:
Hey, I remember what those old things looked like. There was such a qualitative difference between the iPhone and its competitors at the time that it seemed like a whole new category of product.
gosh, if they hadn't basically created the market for phones like this it's hard to see how they would be dominating the market for phones like this, given their behavior.
because that's what first mover advantage is in this case. They created a market, in hardware - that's pretty difficult.
regarding other posts saying Apple wasn't first mover in smartphones:
Hey, I remember what those old things looked like. There was such a qualitative difference between the iPhone and its competitors at the time that it seemed like a whole new category of product.
I owned one. I barely used the keyboard. I barely used the internet connectivity. I even sat out the first iPhone. But I went into a store and tried one out and I knew I was getting the 3G when it came out. Phones may have had those features before, but they were strictly checkbox exercises. The iPhone was revolutionary.
The 3G was really the game changer. I held on to my Treo until then.
Only: the iPhone did not have first mover advantages.
There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.
There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.
They were the first device with a big display and a first-class web browser. That created the smartphone market you now take for granted but was completely revolutionary at the time when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
The other big thing is more subtle: the iPhone was the first major break in the carriers’ value-extraction model. It was common that you’d get phones with half the storage used by promo apps the carrier wouldn’t let you uninstall, and the carrier app stores were both limited and unbelievably expensive. We had multiple clients who were interested in mobile apps but the cost of being in the stores was like $50k per carrier plus half of the proceeds, and that was an improvement over the time Qualcomm demanded to see the balance sheet so they could decide what percentage of their TOTAL revenue was fair – we asked and they confirmed that they expected a cut of every sale, even ones which never involved the mobile app. The energy at WWDC08 was incredible because the app stores were both terms were so much better than anyone had gotten before, and you only had to do it once. I still think it should be better now but it used to be so much worse.
The other big thing is more subtle: the iPhone was the first major break in the carriers’ value-extraction model. It was common that you’d get phones with half the storage used by promo apps the carrier wouldn’t let you uninstall, and the carrier app stores were both limited and unbelievably expensive. We had multiple clients who were interested in mobile apps but the cost of being in the stores was like $50k per carrier plus half of the proceeds, and that was an improvement over the time Qualcomm demanded to see the balance sheet so they could decide what percentage of their TOTAL revenue was fair – we asked and they confirmed that they expected a cut of every sale, even ones which never involved the mobile app. The energy at WWDC08 was incredible because the app stores were both terms were so much better than anyone had gotten before, and you only had to do it once. I still think it should be better now but it used to be so much worse.
There were high-end WinCE and Symbian devices with large displays and no physical keyboards (or sliders where keyboard doesn't encroach on screen size). To remind, first-gen iPhone was 3.5" @ 320x480 in 2007; for comparison, Dell Axim was 3.7" @ 480x640 in 2005, and by 2007 there were some WinMo handhelds with 480x800.
The thing that really made iPhone different was capacitive touchscreen, and the OS designed around that. WinMo pretty much required the stylus for many things.
The thing that really made iPhone different was capacitive touchscreen, and the OS designed around that. WinMo pretty much required the stylus for many things.
Also note “and a first-class web browser” in my compound statement. If you used devices of that era, the browsers sucked at handling most of the web. I knew people who had the previous generation devices (I’m excluding the PalmOS ones I owned since they required a stylus) but nobody used the mobile browser much because it was so unrewarding, and everyone I know replaced them with iPhones due to the web experience.
Yes, the iPhone was nicer to use than what was available in the market the day before it launched.
But the iPhone did _not_ have any first mover advantage. If anything, Apple was late to the party.
But the iPhone did _not_ have any first mover advantage. If anything, Apple was late to the party.
Everything you say might be true, but I wouldn't necessarily call that first mover advantage.
> [...] when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
Ie Apple introduced a new, arguably better, entrant into an existing market, and managed to grow that market.
But I can see your argument that you can re-interpret being that first to really commit to a big touch-screen only and (almost) no buttons to be a 'first move'. (Though a different comment mentioned that Apple wasn't the first here either?)
The iPhone was definitely a successful device!
> [...] when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
Ie Apple introduced a new, arguably better, entrant into an existing market, and managed to grow that market.
But I can see your argument that you can re-interpret being that first to really commit to a big touch-screen only and (almost) no buttons to be a 'first move'. (Though a different comment mentioned that Apple wasn't the first here either?)
The iPhone was definitely a successful device!
Also note the part after “and” - I wrote that as a compound sentence because I saw more people than I expected go from both earlier smartphones or PDAs because the iPhone gave them the web in a way that earlier devices just didn’t. None of my clients had seen much in the way of public mobile web (or WAP) adoption prior to that, but that changed surprisingly quickly when the iPhone launched.
Yes. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by your clients?
I worked with a number of organizations which built public web apps. Nobody really asked about support for mobile browsers before the iPhone - some people checked that, say, an order form was technically functional but the assumption was that if it was slow or hard to read that was more to be expected than something they were going to pay to improve.
+ being early on capacitive touchscreens and multi-touch
Yes, though touchscreens weren't exactly an Apple invention either.
I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.
I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.
Apps weren't what drove people to the original iPhone (the original iPhone didn't have an app store). Apple was essentially the first mainstream company to commit fully to the current smartphone design — a flat, rectangular, portrait aspect ratio brick, with a single slab of capacitive multi-touch glass. There were many other competing form factors at the time. Apple correctly deduced that touching your screen is the most intuitive way to interact with smaller devices, and they had a huge first mover advantage by committing to that paradigm early.
They also included WiFi in every model and iOS had transparent prioritization of WiFi over cellular. Apple's deal with Cingular (AT&T) also gave the iPhone plan unlimited data.
That meant the iPhone had a full fledged browser that you could actually use. The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular. A lot of smartphone plans also didn't include unlimited data. The BlackBerry plans were equally terrible, tied to BBM accounts, and the browsers were even worse.
The iPhone also had a real e-Mail client that could connect directly to a POP/IMAP server. A lot of competing smartphones only supported e-Mail through gateways run by the carriers or an enterprise connection. Even lacking features early on like BCC early iOS Mail was a lot better than the competition for normal users.
I think these all come down to Apple approaching the iPhone from asking what normal people might want to do with their phones instead of what "corporate" wanted people to do with their smartphones. This was 180° from the design approach of RIM, Microsoft, Palm, and even Nokia.
That meant the iPhone had a full fledged browser that you could actually use. The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular. A lot of smartphone plans also didn't include unlimited data. The BlackBerry plans were equally terrible, tied to BBM accounts, and the browsers were even worse.
The iPhone also had a real e-Mail client that could connect directly to a POP/IMAP server. A lot of competing smartphones only supported e-Mail through gateways run by the carriers or an enterprise connection. Even lacking features early on like BCC early iOS Mail was a lot better than the competition for normal users.
I think these all come down to Apple approaching the iPhone from asking what normal people might want to do with their phones instead of what "corporate" wanted people to do with their smartphones. This was 180° from the design approach of RIM, Microsoft, Palm, and even Nokia.
Nokia did pioneer using the smartphone as a decent digital camera (among other things).
For instance decent enough to take a picture of an A4 page and be able to read it afterwards.
And IMAP support.
And Opera mini was a good enough browser, though mostly for text, as indeed 3G cellular (which the first iPhone didn't have) then cost 1000€/Go (funnily enough, that felt cheap and fast at the time, because it indeed was compared to what came before).
(Also video calls, though those are still niche for phones.)
And I hear Nokias were themselves quite primitive compared to what Japan had ?
For instance decent enough to take a picture of an A4 page and be able to read it afterwards.
And IMAP support.
And Opera mini was a good enough browser, though mostly for text, as indeed 3G cellular (which the first iPhone didn't have) then cost 1000€/Go (funnily enough, that felt cheap and fast at the time, because it indeed was compared to what came before).
(Also video calls, though those are still niche for phones.)
And I hear Nokias were themselves quite primitive compared to what Japan had ?
> The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular.
Again, everything in your comment this seems like Apple made an arguably better offering in an existing market. That's not a first mover advantage.
If anything you can say, Apple was late to the party and learned from the mistakes of others?
Again, everything in your comment this seems like Apple made an arguably better offering in an existing market. That's not a first mover advantage.
If anything you can say, Apple was late to the party and learned from the mistakes of others?
Apps weren't the iPhone's first mover advantage. It was a quality data plan, browser, and hardware to support them.
Apple doesn't even have any data plans, do they? I mean Google sometimes plays at being an ISP with projects like Loon or Google Fibre, but Apple has never done that?
The original iPhone was sold exclusively with an AT&T bundled plan in the US
OK. Was the data plan exclusive to the iPhone? (Or was it just the iPhone being exclusive to the data plan.)
It was exclusive to the iPhone, in that the iPhone + ATT plan was the only unlimited data plan you could get at release on a non-carrier controlled general purpose smartphone.
Which is to say, not one that locked away features and functionality (ringtones! games!) to create additional revenue channels for carriers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but per memory Jobs used iPhone exclusivity to crack carrier "Our pipes" models open.
Which is to say, not one that locked away features and functionality (ringtones! games!) to create additional revenue channels for carriers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but per memory Jobs used iPhone exclusivity to crack carrier "Our pipes" models open.
They also built both the hardware as well as the OS. Google has never been able to do that for a new product line.
> What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
The US judicial system makes as much sense as their tax code?
The US judicial system makes as much sense as their tax code?
[deleted]
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future.
Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
That’s splitting hairs. By that logic nobody ever wins when they defend a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just fail to prove their point and different plaintiffs and/or different evidence might prevail in the future.
Well, being dismissed "with prejudice" exists.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice
Yeah, but winning vs winning on all possible fronts is a meaningful distinction. Apple won, they just didn't win as much as possible.
Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
In the coming weeks or months the judge in the Epic case will decide if gacha games can link directly to their own payments without Apple, that threatens 70% of spending on the App Store in Apple's worst-case scenario (per the Epic case it was revealed 10% of users do 70% of spending, in such games). Minus the tens of billions in annual fees on gacha games, and with litigation and regulation around the world I think they will just abandon their most contentious restrictions.
On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year.
On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition.
I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year.
On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition.
I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
Apple would probably just start charging gigantic fees for apps that meet certain criteria to replace some of the lost revenue or maybe even drive higher and more consistent revenue. If I recall correctly, that’s what they did in the European Union.
I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but
I know this is a contrarian view.
Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming.
In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps as costs to do business increase and navigating publishing across various app stores will come with their own rules, costs, and headaches all the while establishes firms who already have the resources can create their own app stores and further extract rent.
Epic charges I think 12% or 17% on their store? Maybe the costs are lower than Apple, idk, but now Epic who is your competitor dictates what you publish on their store and you get the privilege of paying them to do so.
I think we’re cutting off the head of a snake and it’s growing 10 more in response.
I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but
I know this is a contrarian view.
Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming.
In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps as costs to do business increase and navigating publishing across various app stores will come with their own rules, costs, and headaches all the while establishes firms who already have the resources can create their own app stores and further extract rent.
Epic charges I think 12% or 17% on their store? Maybe the costs are lower than Apple, idk, but now Epic who is your competitor dictates what you publish on their store and you get the privilege of paying them to do so.
I think we’re cutting off the head of a snake and it’s growing 10 more in response.
> Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming.
I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go?
On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone.
> In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps
Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
> I know this is a contrarian view.
Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.
I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go?
On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone.
> In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps
Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
> I know this is a contrarian view.
Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.
> I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go?
I just don't really care if Apple gets a larger cut of the venue or if these large corporations do. Even on Desktop things aren't that great. My friends and I wanted to play Civ VI recently and they were on the Epic game store and I had purchased the game on Steam and they weren't compatible for cross-platform play. I know that's mostly a one-off, but it's not like I can buy Nintendo's games on Steam, nor can I transfer my license of Elden Ring on Xbox to my Epic Game Store.
None of this helps small developers they just now have to publish their games to multiple app stores which you may or may not have or may or may not want to set up an account for and you're paying Epic 17% instead of Apple.
Of course you can argue (and should, in my view) that those things suck and we shouldn't support those things either and I would agree! But where I disagree is then saying well Apple's the only malicious actor here. They're all in it together.
> Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
Well, it is a recent change. So yes it is pending evidence. If Epic and Microsoft left it's because they want to gain control and more of the Apple revenue slice instead of paying out. Neither helps small game developers. Most of the limitation on mobile for gaming is that mobile gaming sucks and always will because the interface is bad compared to keyboard and mouse or a controller.
> You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
Well as a user now I have to install yet another app that has my payment information and its own arbitrary rules. I might forget what App Store has what app. Maybe Epic makes me agree to some privacy considerations that Apple didn't in order to play their game and they only publish this "must-have" game on their store so they can collect data on me.
As someone who uses a Mac it's frustrating that not all games work on macOS. Why does Microsoft get to release Age of Empires only on the Windows-only Xbox Game Store (or whatever)? That's ok? There's a lot more of these dark patterns going on than these companies are leading you to believe.
YMMV but stores are incentivized to conduct activities to keep people using their store. Sometimes it's helpful to users and results in lower cost, other times it results in gatekeeping and other things that suck. My point is just that it's not a net moral good, but instead it's neutral and probably worse for developers since they have more bureaucracy to deal with and users since they have to deal with all of these app stores and payment mechanisms and whatnot.
> Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong?
I've considered it, and then considered that it's not wrong and it's just contrarian to what most people here on HN think.
Most people day-to-day don't really care about this and just prefer a single App Store, but then on HN people who like to jailbreak their phones and install and tinker with their phones and want lots of app stores with apps and are over-represented here.
Microsoft
Sony
Nintendo
Ubisoft
Epic
Valve
Square Enix
I just don't really care if Apple gets a larger cut of the venue or if these large corporations do. Even on Desktop things aren't that great. My friends and I wanted to play Civ VI recently and they were on the Epic game store and I had purchased the game on Steam and they weren't compatible for cross-platform play. I know that's mostly a one-off, but it's not like I can buy Nintendo's games on Steam, nor can I transfer my license of Elden Ring on Xbox to my Epic Game Store.
None of this helps small developers they just now have to publish their games to multiple app stores which you may or may not have or may or may not want to set up an account for and you're paying Epic 17% instead of Apple.
Of course you can argue (and should, in my view) that those things suck and we shouldn't support those things either and I would agree! But where I disagree is then saying well Apple's the only malicious actor here. They're all in it together.
> Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
Well, it is a recent change. So yes it is pending evidence. If Epic and Microsoft left it's because they want to gain control and more of the Apple revenue slice instead of paying out. Neither helps small game developers. Most of the limitation on mobile for gaming is that mobile gaming sucks and always will because the interface is bad compared to keyboard and mouse or a controller.
> You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
Well as a user now I have to install yet another app that has my payment information and its own arbitrary rules. I might forget what App Store has what app. Maybe Epic makes me agree to some privacy considerations that Apple didn't in order to play their game and they only publish this "must-have" game on their store so they can collect data on me.
As someone who uses a Mac it's frustrating that not all games work on macOS. Why does Microsoft get to release Age of Empires only on the Windows-only Xbox Game Store (or whatever)? That's ok? There's a lot more of these dark patterns going on than these companies are leading you to believe.
YMMV but stores are incentivized to conduct activities to keep people using their store. Sometimes it's helpful to users and results in lower cost, other times it results in gatekeeping and other things that suck. My point is just that it's not a net moral good, but instead it's neutral and probably worse for developers since they have more bureaucracy to deal with and users since they have to deal with all of these app stores and payment mechanisms and whatnot.
> Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong?
I've considered it, and then considered that it's not wrong and it's just contrarian to what most people here on HN think.
Most people day-to-day don't really care about this and just prefer a single App Store, but then on HN people who like to jailbreak their phones and install and tinker with their phones and want lots of app stores with apps and are over-represented here.
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments.
So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
Contradictory rulings are fodder for Supreme Court dockets.
Google is appealing this case to the Supreme Court, seeing as how they ruled for Apple it wouldn't come as a surprise if they also win.
It sets a strange precedent
> If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right.
how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company?
it doesn't, right
the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.
how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company?
it doesn't, right
the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.
> how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company?
Looking at previous decisions and leveraging them basically is the job of a lawyer.
IMHO this decision won't stand long. You cannot apply different decisions to similar cases.
Looking at previous decisions and leveraging them basically is the job of a lawyer.
IMHO this decision won't stand long. You cannot apply different decisions to similar cases.
yes but that doesn't mean that the us should not crack down on marked power abuse
being atm. in a position where suing you doesn't work well doesn't mean you are not causing harm nor doesn't mean you are not acting outside of the law. It only means that there is currently no effective way to use the law against you. But that can always change. And the US cracking down on them isn't limited to judge orders from cases of 3rd party companies against them. More specifically it's not even part of the state cracking down as that only refers to legislative and executive organs of the state judicial organs are supposed to be neutral.
being atm. in a position where suing you doesn't work well doesn't mean you are not causing harm nor doesn't mean you are not acting outside of the law. It only means that there is currently no effective way to use the law against you. But that can always change. And the US cracking down on them isn't limited to judge orders from cases of 3rd party companies against them. More specifically it's not even part of the state cracking down as that only refers to legislative and executive organs of the state judicial organs are supposed to be neutral.
Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.
> Google appears open yet is closed in practice
How is Android closed in practice?
How is Android closed in practice?
For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing happening on non-Google hardware.
Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
Speaking of OEMs (and non-Google Android in general), Google has moved some functionality from base Android into Google Play Services so some apps won't work unless you get that installed.
This is easily seen to be false, but I see it repeated often. The functionality in Google Play Services requires a server. If you don't use Google services, you don't need Play Services. https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages
Apparently you don't know enough about Android, a perfect example of this is eSIM, you simply couldn't use eSIM without Google Play Services.
That functionality was never available in phones with Google builds without Google Play Services, so it doesn't fit GGP's claim. The reason it's not in base AOSP out of the box is that it requires a server, and any carrier can build an implementation for downloading carrier profiles without Google Play Services and any OEM can build an LPA using https://source.android.com/docs/core/connect/esim-overview.
You don’t have GPS satellite data, “location services” without Google Play services. That means a gps lock takes minutes. This data could be stored on the phone, but it’s better for google if you fetch it from them when you need it.
eh. you can't provision the esim without google play services today. after the esim is provisioned you can put whatever firmware on the phone you like, and it will just work.
i'm running lineageos with no google play services on a verizon esim as my daily driver
i'm running lineageos with no google play services on a verizon esim as my daily driver
That isn't true anymore, F-Droid for example auto-updates
Ah, this is true, but it's weird consider this issue (that I agree google might be overstepping in) in a lawsuit that doesn't involve an affected OEM.
> Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage
Google incentivized the OEMs to do that. Amazon could have incentivized OEMs to do that also, but the business plan that Amazon pursued did not involve third parties building their own Kindle devices.
> Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it.
This has never been true for Android in general. This hasn't been true for phones that only ship with the Play Store since Android 12, which I credit Epic for.
Google incentivized the OEMs to do that. Amazon could have incentivized OEMs to do that also, but the business plan that Amazon pursued did not involve third parties building their own Kindle devices.
> Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it.
This has never been true for Android in general. This hasn't been true for phones that only ship with the Play Store since Android 12, which I credit Epic for.
Microsoft also “incentivized” OEMs to not install competing browsers by threatening to remove their OEM licensing. Didn’t Google do something similar?
No. They just threatened to remove access to the Play Store.
So, something similar then. OK, not as onerous as removing the whole OS, which they can’t do because Android uses an open license, but the next big thing. No play store, no Google services. May as well remove the OS.
Many of the fundamental apps on Android, and the Play store itself, can only be used under license. Android OSP does not contain many things that you would expect to be part of Android.
Also, most modern devices won't even let you flash your own OS, even a modified copy of Android. It's irrelevant if the source code is available if you can't actually run it anywhere. It's the TeVo case all over again.
Also, most modern devices won't even let you flash your own OS, even a modified copy of Android. It's irrelevant if the source code is available if you can't actually run it anywhere. It's the TeVo case all over again.
SafetyNet’s successor and effectively forced hardware attestation make devices designed for consumption, not development.
I'm reading all the arguments below for why Google just appears open, while they aren't, and they are bullshit.
Go here, download and install the APK: https://f-droid.org/en/
You now have a third party app repository on your phone. And actually every Samsung device comes with their own app store installed in addition to Google Play. It's not perfect, Play having the privilege to automatically install updates, but good enough.
Also, AOSP is completely usable even without Google's apps or Play Services, and one proof of that is that Amazon forked it for their Kindle Fire.
The arguments from Apple fans are truly bizarre.
Go here, download and install the APK: https://f-droid.org/en/
You now have a third party app repository on your phone. And actually every Samsung device comes with their own app store installed in addition to Google Play. It's not perfect, Play having the privilege to automatically install updates, but good enough.
Also, AOSP is completely usable even without Google's apps or Play Services, and one proof of that is that Amazon forked it for their Kindle Fire.
The arguments from Apple fans are truly bizarre.
It is bizarre, because besides having F-Droid, you could just as well install APKs from Play Store without the Play Store using APKMirror, etc.
And Aurora is a thing.
No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation.
Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.
Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts.
There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps
Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts.
There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps
To build out this metaphor a little more, John Deere makes the tractor (phone OS) which pulls machinery (apps - plow, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc). This would be John Deere controlling which equipment the tractor may or may not be allowed to pull, only machinery allowed by John Deere who gets a 30% cut for the privilege. This would be a great deal for Johnny D!
This. I'm so tired of people (and Google/Apple themselves) trying to change the narrative and say that this is about Android and iOS competing. It's not. Both companies are effectively saying you have no right to change the upholstery in your car unless you buy the package from them.
This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.
This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.
> That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.
That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.
Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.
That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.
Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.
You are being overly semantic. There is a monopoly and duopoly, and regardless of the number of companies involved, antitrust laws can be used to break up these businesses and prevent anti-competitive practices to encourage market growth.
The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effectively for lay person conversations, using monopoly where more technical terms like duopoly is okay
The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effectively for lay person conversations, using monopoly where more technical terms like duopoly is okay
In your comment above you've suggested two terms that fit better: "Duopoly" and "cartel".
Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?
To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.
This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.
Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?
To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.
This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.
You are ignoring the relevant market. Sure, Google and Apple are competitors in the smartphone market (where they have a very dangerous duopoly, but let's leave that aside). But they each have a monopoly in the software distribution market for their respective platforms. Additionally, Google has a monopoly position in the smartphone OS market: if you want to build a smartphone, Google Android is basically the only option in town (Apple doesn't sell or license iOS, so it's not a competitor at all in this market).
Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.
Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.
The word "monopoly" is irrelevant for many of the laws involved.
You're probably right about that. It seems to be a misunderstanding of words mostly in online discussion.
What do you think it means ?
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Note the "typically", and other courts never even had this rule of thumb to begin with...
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Note the "typically", and other courts never even had this rule of thumb to begin with...
> Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
The reason it sounds weird is because you are insisting on wording it a particular way.
They're a duopoly. They're being tried for abusing that duopoly. Nothing rotten there.
The reason it sounds weird is because you are insisting on wording it a particular way.
They're a duopoly. They're being tried for abusing that duopoly. Nothing rotten there.
[deleted]
While the term “monopoly” is being misused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, with basic reading comprehension, that the intent is “seemingly anti-competitive behavior”.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sure, but I would argue that Google's platform was open enough in that it was possible to download and install alternative app stores. They shouldn't need to do most of the things that are being requested here, like distribute play store apps in those alternate stores or change their requirements about what payment systems are used in apps downloaded through their app store. For the most part I think they should still be able to do what they want to do in their own app store, just like Apple.
I think the difference is Google's platform is also on other manufacturers devices? If Android only existed on Pixel devices it could be different.
Why should that matter? If anything, shouldn't that mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly on Android apps in the way that Apple has on iOS apps because the device manufacturer can pre-install their own store on their devices? Like Galaxy Store on Samsung devices
It matters because Google got to the current state (Play Store installed on more devices than it would have been) through anti-competitive behavior.
Ergo, the redress isn't to say "Keep the ill gotten gains, but don't do it any more" -- it's to attempt to return things to the competitive playing field that might have existed if Google hadn't broken the law.
From that perspective, forcing them to use their market share to distribute alternatives makes sense.
Ergo, the redress isn't to say "Keep the ill gotten gains, but don't do it any more" -- it's to attempt to return things to the competitive playing field that might have existed if Google hadn't broken the law.
From that perspective, forcing them to use their market share to distribute alternatives makes sense.
It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here.
In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot).
Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of.
(Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)
In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot).
Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of.
(Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)
Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.
They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open.
In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole.
Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole.
Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).
I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?
Yeah the code being open-source vs closed-source didn't have anything to do with the legal ruling here. The judge claimed that the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store are not competitors (LMFAO), and therefore Google can be held liable even if Apple wasn't. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
(FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
(FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
They aren't direct competitors.
You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls.
Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store.
Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive.
It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill.
Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them?
Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching.
If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.
You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls.
Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store.
Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive.
It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill.
Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them?
Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching.
If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.
Android as a platform is open source. Android does not promise any of Google Services' features.
Meanwhile, Apple literally reinvents apps/features that developers on iOS have made and rolls them into the base OS/you can bet when an API is blocked or deprecated that Apple is just about to release their own version of something.
People like to joke that Google's "don't be evil" is no longer applicable, but they completely ignore just how evil Apple really is. Totally brainwashed.
Meanwhile, Apple literally reinvents apps/features that developers on iOS have made and rolls them into the base OS/you can bet when an API is blocked or deprecated that Apple is just about to release their own version of something.
People like to joke that Google's "don't be evil" is no longer applicable, but they completely ignore just how evil Apple really is. Totally brainwashed.
I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.
Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge legally-enforced advantage.
I liked the absurdity of one of the top comments on the Verge article, which was that under the requirements of this ruling, Apple could open up an app store for Android and Google would be forced to put it on their Play Store.
Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular web browser on the Apple app store
Chrome is on there and people still use it. It’s just not using Blink. Web browser ≠ rendering engine.
Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine?
I would say not.
I would say not.
Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
I would say not.
And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
I would say not.
And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
> I would say not.
No, obviously not. If Apple were to allow third-party web rendering engines but disallow third-party web chrome that would be equally ridiculous. But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
> And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is), but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
No, obviously not. If Apple were to allow third-party web rendering engines but disallow third-party web chrome that would be equally ridiculous. But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
> And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is), but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
> But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink.
> but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they themselves chose to brand it exactly the same as their desktop and Android browser; and that’s exactly how people perceive it: Google Chrome. It’s also wildly popular. I ask people about it sometimes when I see them using it and all that geeky crap that you and I know about how it’s not the same as Google’s “real” browser is beyond them. They don’t care and it’s just Google Chrome to them.
> It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is)
WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.
Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink.
> but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they themselves chose to brand it exactly the same as their desktop and Android browser; and that’s exactly how people perceive it: Google Chrome. It’s also wildly popular. I ask people about it sometimes when I see them using it and all that geeky crap that you and I know about how it’s not the same as Google’s “real” browser is beyond them. They don’t care and it’s just Google Chrome to them.
> It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is)
WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.
> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Both of these can easily be true at the same time.
> And it has a rendering engine
Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.
Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Both of these can easily be true at the same time.
> And it has a rendering engine
Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.
>>> Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine?
>> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
> Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
Only as much as what I was responding to was an argument.
> If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use.
> Which is replacing the one that was removed.
“Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones. The Chrome that is in the App Store now is one that Google chose to ship and call Chrome. People like and use it too.
I think we can agree that WebKit is being subbed in over Google’s preferred choice of rendering engines though.
>> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
> Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
Only as much as what I was responding to was an argument.
> If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use.
> Which is replacing the one that was removed.
“Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones. The Chrome that is in the App Store now is one that Google chose to ship and call Chrome. People like and use it too.
I think we can agree that WebKit is being subbed in over Google’s preferred choice of rendering engines though.
A meaningless advantage.
Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS.
The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought.
But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now!
But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.
Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS.
The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought.
But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now!
But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.
[deleted]
The issue is that the precedent they point to was categorically ruled _not_ an illegal monopoly in a similar court case. I don't disagree that there should be more competition in for platforms, but I also can recognize that the legally binding opinion on that disagrees with mine.
Which case is that? Because that's not how the Apple ruling went.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple, the ruling definitively stated that Apple does not need to add third party app stores to its platform, and the appeal upheld that ruling (with the Supreme Court declining to hear further appeals, meaning the case is finished). The only change Apple had to make is supporting third-party payment platforms.
> Judge Rogers issued her first ruling on September 10, 2021, which was considered a split decision by law professor Mark Lemley.[63] Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut and Apple's prohibition against third-party marketplaces on the iOS environment.[64] Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.
> ...
> The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court.[79] Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023.[80][81] Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.[82]
> On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.
Given that the claim I was responding to implied that it was foolish of Google to cite Apple due to them being a monopoly, can you elaborate on why you think this ruling somehow was an obviously bad idea for them to argue as a precedent? To repeat myself from before, I'm _not_ expressing personal opinion about whether iOS and Android should be allowed to operate the way they do, but asserting that the court ruling does in fact state that the current way Apple handles third-party app stores is legal.
> Judge Rogers issued her first ruling on September 10, 2021, which was considered a split decision by law professor Mark Lemley.[63] Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut and Apple's prohibition against third-party marketplaces on the iOS environment.[64] Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.
> ...
> The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court.[79] Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023.[80][81] Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.[82]
> On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.
Given that the claim I was responding to implied that it was foolish of Google to cite Apple due to them being a monopoly, can you elaborate on why you think this ruling somehow was an obviously bad idea for them to argue as a precedent? To repeat myself from before, I'm _not_ expressing personal opinion about whether iOS and Android should be allowed to operate the way they do, but asserting that the court ruling does in fact state that the current way Apple handles third-party app stores is legal.
I believe it is too late for that and we are stuck with bad mobile OS. Additional stores don't solve the problem of hardware not being open at all.
People have accepted that either manufacturer or mobile provider owns their phone. You do not have administrative rights and some apps even disallow being run in a more free environment.
People have accepted that either manufacturer or mobile provider owns their phone. You do not have administrative rights and some apps even disallow being run in a more free environment.
I really do not see how Android should be opened up more.
I can install 3 different app stores in 3 minutes.
They could preinstall a bunch of competitors and you'd choose the ones you keep at first startup (like Microsoft had to do with browser). This would allow fairer competition for competing stores.
Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.
Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.
Sadly, most users should have Play Store and nothing else IMO. I respect the Play security team.
What I could see: make Play Store and Play Services uninstallable like any other app.
What I could see: make Play Store and Play Services uninstallable like any other app.
You can disable them, which is functionally uninstalling. Actually being able to uninstall them isn't technically possible because their base images live on a read-only partition so they survive factory reset (which erases all RW partitions). The OS could _pretend_ they're uninstalled, but that seems strictly worse than the existing presentation which more accurately reflects reality.
Not exactly the same situation, but I keep wondering : is deleting personal data only "pretending", since most of it could potentially be restored for quite some time (especially on transistor storage) ?
Android is a hell of a lot closer to 'open' than iOS
[deleted]
Sure, but I think it's fair to say "why are you regulating us significantly more than you are regulating our similar competitor?" Android is already more open than iOS; you can already install third-party app stores, where the only hoop you have to jump is agreeing to a warning about installing things from "unknown sources".
But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor does it give access to the full Play Store catalog to third-party app stores. Frankly I'd never even thought of the latter thing as something I or anyone would want, but sure, ok, make them do that.
Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their App Store monopoly (in the US at least), a situation that is even more locked down than Android's has ever been.
I absolutely agree that Apple's platform needs to be opened up too. And while I'm often not sympathetic toward Google on a lot of things, I can absolutely be sympathetic toward them feeling like they are being treated vastly unequally by the law.
But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor does it give access to the full Play Store catalog to third-party app stores. Frankly I'd never even thought of the latter thing as something I or anyone would want, but sure, ok, make them do that.
Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their App Store monopoly (in the US at least), a situation that is even more locked down than Android's has ever been.
I absolutely agree that Apple's platform needs to be opened up too. And while I'm often not sympathetic toward Google on a lot of things, I can absolutely be sympathetic toward them feeling like they are being treated vastly unequally by the law.
It's simple. There exists a market for app stores on Android, there doesn't exist such a market on iOS. So, Apple can't be said to have a monopoly position in the iOS app distribution market, because, again, such a market doesn't exist, and there is no general obligation to create one (there is a different discussion about the app market, which Epic was attacking and which failed for now).
But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.
But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.
It does make sense for Amazon's app store, as it's a general app store. Makes way less sense for Epic and other gaming/company focused storefronts.
Two 'monopolies' in app stores aren't a monopoly. They are at most a duopoly..
Not really because they are different monopolies. The IOS apps and Android apps are different markets
The reductio ad absurdum of this style of argument would hold that every retailer is a monopoly, because once you walk into the store, you can only buy things from them.
This is more like renting a room in a store than walking into one.
> Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
The point is that Google is already open
The point is that Google is already open
But it is. For the savvy user you can run whatever you want on an android device.
Which is exactly why the Google case succeeded: Google does have competing app stores, and they are crushing them using anti-competitive practices.
Both Google and Apple have built walled gardens with their app stores
"even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility..."
It would be informative to know—by jurisdiction—the stats of what type of smartphone OS the key deciders had in their pockets.
It would be informative to know—by jurisdiction—the stats of what type of smartphone OS the key deciders had in their pockets.
Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and their distribution network.
Ebay sellers already can do this [1] [2]
[1] https://www.edesk.com/blog/ebay-fulfillment-amazon-fba/
[2] https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon
[1] https://www.edesk.com/blog/ebay-fulfillment-amazon-fba/
[2] https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon
It has allowed it, but it intentionally cripples alternative markets. For example, I cannot allow F-Droid to autoinstall and autoupdate apps on my phone if I don't have a rooted device.
that has been untrue for a little while: https://f-droid.org/2024/02/01/twif.html
Also, applications installed through FDroid cannot be used in Android Auto. For example OsmAnd navigation.
gjsman-1000(4)
unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they sign....its not open like Google claims....
They got caught doing the same thing Microsoft got caught doing in the 90s with IE/Netscape -- using their monopoly position on one piece of software (Windows, the Google app suite) to prevent their OEMs from shipping another piece of software by default (Netscape, Epic Games Store) that directly competed with their own offering (Internet Explorer, Google Play Store). Since Google and Microsoft both use OEMs, unlike Apple in their parallel case, there's a clearer line to how Google is being unfair compared to how Apple is being unfair.
In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
In general, in the courts, it's a lot easier to ask a judge or jury for someone to stop doing a thing (blocking their software from being pre-installed) vs. forcing someone to do something they're not currently doing (allowing any third-party app stores).
In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
In general, in the courts, it's a lot easier to ask a judge or jury for someone to stop doing a thing (blocking their software from being pre-installed) vs. forcing someone to do something they're not currently doing (allowing any third-party app stores).
> In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
This is actually very insightful given the history between Google and Samsung with Tizen.
This is actually very insightful given the history between Google and Samsung with Tizen.
>allowing any third-party app stores
Couldn't you reword that as allowing unsigned and self signed software to be installed? You can push your own apps to your iOS device but iirc Apple artificially limits the number of self signed apps that can be installed
Couldn't you reword that as allowing unsigned and self signed software to be installed? You can push your own apps to your iOS device but iirc Apple artificially limits the number of self signed apps that can be installed
Aside from the EU explicitly mandating it, the developer agreement you sign with Apple in order to ship software on their platform prohibits you from doing so. And while you theoretically can write your own storefront, running self-signed apps isn’t going to be a viable user story with the way Apple’s set it up (intentionally, in my opinion).
It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like:
- Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
- Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
- Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
- Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.
- Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
- Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
- Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
- Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.
- wow, this is an exact case Apple more or less won in Apple v Epic. They got some minor slap on the wrist about steering but they still got around that. Apple must have paid their judge off big time
- Yup, this is the steering that Apple "lost".
>Starting January 16, developers can apply for an entitlement to provide a link within their app to a website the developer owns or is responsible for. The entitlement can only be used for iOS or iPadOS apps in the United States App Store.
There's so many stipulations to getting this approved that it's hard to call it a win. Just more delays
- good, but ofc irrelevant on Apple for now.
- And good. Somewhat relevant for Apple but the stipulations above make this hard.
I mostly hope this precedent can be used against future Apple proceedings to get that store opened up.
- Yup, this is the steering that Apple "lost".
>Starting January 16, developers can apply for an entitlement to provide a link within their app to a website the developer owns or is responsible for. The entitlement can only be used for iOS or iPadOS apps in the United States App Store.
There's so many stipulations to getting this approved that it's hard to call it a win. Just more delays
- good, but ofc irrelevant on Apple for now.
- And good. Somewhat relevant for Apple but the stipulations above make this hard.
I mostly hope this precedent can be used against future Apple proceedings to get that store opened up.
- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
Since Android 12, third party app stores can auto-update apps
This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked by the Play Store version eventually.
Generally no that doesn't happen. It may be very specific to Amazon though. Android uses signing keys to validate updates, and if the signing key doesn't match, it is impossible to install the update. My guess is Amazon (was?) using the same signing keys between the two stores.
Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
Interesting. I assumed there was some kind of internal identifier, which was the same between the two variants of the app, but I guess that identifier is just (a hash of?) the public key. Nevertheless, it seems like the Play Store had priority for providing updates.
Tangentially, how does Android handle signing key rotation/expiration?
Tangentially, how does Android handle signing key rotation/expiration?
The identifier would be the package name baked into the APK, "com.amazon.mshop.android.shopping" in this case, likely the same for both versions. I'm sure there's several ways that issue could have happened but my first guess would be some OEM nonsense, a lot of them bundle Amazon and probably have poorly written updaters that can't tell you've modified the install.
This happened on Pixel devices, so the OEM is Google (which might be related). As I recall, no Amazon apps come preinstalled, but I have installed them from the Play Store first, then removed them, so maybe that could have flipped some flag too.
Interesting, yeah could be. Disabling Play Store auto-updates for the app if enabled might help.
Actually I'm not sure how you installed Amazon Shopping from the Amazon store anyways? I installed it a while back assuming they would have versions of Shopping and Kindle that would let me buy books, but they didn't seem to distribute those apps at all which I thought was strange. Still not seeing them there now.
Actually I'm not sure how you installed Amazon Shopping from the Amazon store anyways? I installed it a while back assuming they would have versions of Shopping and Kindle that would let me buy books, but they didn't seem to distribute those apps at all which I thought was strange. Still not seeing them there now.
Wow, you're right. Now I'm not sure of my own memory on this. I remember installing Kindle (or pre-Kindle Comixology...?) from somewhere and being able to buy on it, but then it got replaced with the version where you couldn't. Maybe that was because it got discontinued on the third-party app store (which I thought was Amazon's)?
This is not true, I get automatic updates with F-Droid just fine.
The Epic v Google and Epic v Apple cases are a great showcase about how the law actually works in practice.
Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2].
There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law.
(Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.)
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2].
There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law.
(Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.)
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
[deleted]
If you claim the platform you create is open, but use anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that the platform is closed.
Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox.
Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .
Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox.
Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .
This is a terrible incentive structure to set up for platforms.
I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens.
How is that better for consumer choice?
I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens.
How is that better for consumer choice?
From the TFA
> Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
> Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
> Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
> Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Have you really never ran into any apps that would have hit these restrictions ?
If you've never have use the Play Store in the first place that would be the case, but otherwise I'd assume every app you got from there are subjected to those.
> Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
> Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
> Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
> Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Have you really never ran into any apps that would have hit these restrictions ?
If you've never have use the Play Store in the first place that would be the case, but otherwise I'd assume every app you got from there are subjected to those.
Yes. I install everything I can through F-Droid or sideloading and only fall back on the Play Store for a few things like banking apps which couldn't care less about Google's monetization rules.
Thanks for the clarification.
On banking apps, I wonder how isolated they are. My bank offers insurance services, and they can be paid through other means than my bank account. But I can't contract them in my app, it's only available by phone or through the web site.
I wonder if they just took the safest route and removed any "buying" operation from their app instead of having to fight Apple or Google later (used both apps, had same limitations)
On banking apps, I wonder how isolated they are. My bank offers insurance services, and they can be paid through other means than my bank account. But I can't contract them in my app, it's only available by phone or through the web site.
I wonder if they just took the safest route and removed any "buying" operation from their app instead of having to fight Apple or Google later (used both apps, had same limitations)
As an Android user, I've paid for two, maybe three? apps. And got a refund on one because the paid version didn't do what I thought it said it did.
The restrictions on non-Google billing did impact my employer, but it was less of a problem in the US as in some other countries where Google only billing meant we couldn't charge users as very few had Google compatible payment methods and Google wouldn't let us use other providers that could accept money with the payment methods people actually had. We had other methods in our apk download, but I recall having to take those out, too.
Of course, Apple made payment go through them, but most Apple can accept payments from most of their users, and a lot of their users have a payment method on file.
The restrictions on non-Google billing did impact my employer, but it was less of a problem in the US as in some other countries where Google only billing meant we couldn't charge users as very few had Google compatible payment methods and Google wouldn't let us use other providers that could accept money with the payment methods people actually had. We had other methods in our apk download, but I recall having to take those out, too.
Of course, Apple made payment go through them, but most Apple can accept payments from most of their users, and a lot of their users have a payment method on file.
To note, the above restriction's impact is not only affecting paid apps, but also all the apps that could have offered paid services.
Amazon Kindle is the poster child of that, but there's a myriad of other services that won't make an app to protect their feelings structure.
Amazon Kindle is the poster child of that, but there's a myriad of other services that won't make an app to protect their feelings structure.
> I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open ....
I suspect you mean, you chose Android because Google _said_ it was open.
Plenty of tech people chose Android because they knew others would be able to carve out a workable system based on the open source bits even if Google didn't actually keep it open.
This ruling is basically against Google rug-pulling - for example, looking the other way on third-party billing until deciding (after critical mass) that you are going to start enforcing the use of Google's payment services for certain classes of apps. At that point you are destroying businesses with such back-tracking.
They were slapped down because Google claimed they were open because you allow third party stores, but creating roadblocks (Play services, DRM licensing and device certifications for streaming apps) and applying pressure or doing revenue-sharing schemes with device manufacturers on the back-end to keep them from making their own store.
It is very difficult for a judge to slap Apple down for antitrust when Apple has been very careful to keep consistent rules and to only change them when it is considered invariably considered a benefit to the App Store developer (subscription rate reductions after one year, small business program, opening up new categories of apps like legacy emulators).
It is hard to argue a point when Apple started abusing their position when their behavior is consistent. If the App Store is a bad deal then why has it grown to be such a juggernaut from nothing?
That is why the EU took a different philosophy with the DMA.
I suspect you mean, you chose Android because Google _said_ it was open.
Plenty of tech people chose Android because they knew others would be able to carve out a workable system based on the open source bits even if Google didn't actually keep it open.
This ruling is basically against Google rug-pulling - for example, looking the other way on third-party billing until deciding (after critical mass) that you are going to start enforcing the use of Google's payment services for certain classes of apps. At that point you are destroying businesses with such back-tracking.
They were slapped down because Google claimed they were open because you allow third party stores, but creating roadblocks (Play services, DRM licensing and device certifications for streaming apps) and applying pressure or doing revenue-sharing schemes with device manufacturers on the back-end to keep them from making their own store.
It is very difficult for a judge to slap Apple down for antitrust when Apple has been very careful to keep consistent rules and to only change them when it is considered invariably considered a benefit to the App Store developer (subscription rate reductions after one year, small business program, opening up new categories of apps like legacy emulators).
It is hard to argue a point when Apple started abusing their position when their behavior is consistent. If the App Store is a bad deal then why has it grown to be such a juggernaut from nothing?
That is why the EU took a different philosophy with the DMA.
I already responded to the condescending "you didn't really know what you were choosing" comment below. The tldr is that I knew exactly what I was choosing and have never had any issues with it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41772355
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41772355
If Google had tried to make an iPhone style ecosystem, all evidence is clear that they would have utterly failed, like almost every other consumer device that Google has tried to promote, and we would have had at least a few more iOS competitors (maybe Windows would have lived? Maybe Samsung would have finished Tizen?). The reason Android succeeded was precisely because it was open and available to multiple OEMs. But that also opens Google up more to anti-competitive scrutiny.
Google could have licensed Android to OEMs, not allowed 3rd party app stores, made 3rd party app installation functionally infeasible (need to reinstall every week), and forbidden other web browsers.
I appreciate that Android did not go down this route because I don't believe any of these choices would have caused Android to fail.
I appreciate that Android did not go down this route because I don't believe any of these choices would have caused Android to fail.
> I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging
That sounds like you either haven’t heard all of the indie developers complaining or are inclined to find reasons to say problems with “your side” have some other explanation. For example, this was just a couple weeks ago where Google’s “open platform” blocked a popular app from doing what their mutual customers wanted:
https://ia.net/topics/our-android-app-is-frozen-in-carbonite
That sounds like you either haven’t heard all of the indie developers complaining or are inclined to find reasons to say problems with “your side” have some other explanation. For example, this was just a couple weeks ago where Google’s “open platform” blocked a popular app from doing what their mutual customers wanted:
https://ia.net/topics/our-android-app-is-frozen-in-carbonite
If you chose Android because it’s open, then the judge has just forced Google to make it more open for you.
If someone chose iOS because it’s closed then the judge has decided it can stay mostly closed.
Also Google is where it is because they pitched a platform that was friendlier for carriers to load up with crapware than Apple was. It wasn’t really openness for openness’ sake. If Google hadn’t done that we might have been in a world where Palm or Microsoft were the secondary or primary player next to iOS.
If someone chose iOS because it’s closed then the judge has decided it can stay mostly closed.
Also Google is where it is because they pitched a platform that was friendlier for carriers to load up with crapware than Apple was. It wasn’t really openness for openness’ sake. If Google hadn’t done that we might have been in a world where Palm or Microsoft were the secondary or primary player next to iOS.
I'm not really concerned about what will happen to Android—worst case scenario at this point, the community forks it and I use the fork.
I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. As long as this is the state of US law, we won't see another open platform developed in the US because these rulings together say that the only way to be sure you're not punished for anti-competitive behavior is to ensure that no one can ever define a "market" around your platform. Only a fully walled garden is safe.
I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. As long as this is the state of US law, we won't see another open platform developed in the US because these rulings together say that the only way to be sure you're not punished for anti-competitive behavior is to ensure that no one can ever define a "market" around your platform. Only a fully walled garden is safe.
Google is not being punished for being “open”. It’s being punished for pressuring OEMs and app developers into illegal contracts behind closed doors, or in other words using its monopoly position in anti competitive ways.
Apple published the rules for their App Store over a decade ago and has largely stood by them so Apple is not being punished.
Apple published the rules for their App Store over a decade ago and has largely stood by them so Apple is not being punished.
It's the law.
Having a closed platform isn't illegal. Just ask Nintendo.
Anticompetitive behavior is illegal, even when you are anticompetitively competing in a market that you yourself chose to create by creating an open platform. Just ask Microsoft.
If Google's leadership didn't understand that legal restrictions their choice placed upon them, that failure is on Google's leaderhip.
Having a closed platform isn't illegal. Just ask Nintendo.
Anticompetitive behavior is illegal, even when you are anticompetitively competing in a market that you yourself chose to create by creating an open platform. Just ask Microsoft.
If Google's leadership didn't understand that legal restrictions their choice placed upon them, that failure is on Google's leaderhip.
Like I said, I get the reasoning, I just think it's a terrible outcome.
> "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."
(Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)
> "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."
(Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)
Nothing forced Google to compete in an anticompetitive manner.
They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.
They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.
You know as well as I do that no company will ever do that. The result will be that there will be no new platforms that aren't either fully locked down or built by and for FOSS enthusiasts.
Heck, just look at WordPress for an example of what happens when a company tries to create a purely open platform and then still be a for-profit company. You can have open platforms maintained out of altruism or closed platforms maintained for profit. Android was a middle path that has now been shown to be illegal.
Heck, just look at WordPress for an example of what happens when a company tries to create a purely open platform and then still be a for-profit company. You can have open platforms maintained out of altruism or closed platforms maintained for profit. Android was a middle path that has now been shown to be illegal.
Creating an open platform is a choice that restricts your allowable actions in the future in exchange for faster growth in the present.
You can still be a for profit company with an open platform without acting in an illegal manner.
You just won't be able to afford as large a hanger for your blimp in as small a number of years.
You can still be a for profit company with an open platform without acting in an illegal manner.
You just won't be able to afford as large a hanger for your blimp in as small a number of years.
Google did not compete in an anticompetitive matter (w.r.t. app stores) and a federal judge determining that they did means nothing because it will likely be appealed by another judge. They will probably win their appeal because the verdict is insane.
"I chose Android because it's open"
But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you.
It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you.
It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
> You were defrauded
No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years.
Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years.
Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
Your lack of understanding of how you were defrauded does not change that you were. This is exactly why the government sometimes steps in to fix things even when a company is considered popular by consumers.
Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well.
You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.
Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well.
You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.
> Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed
I can't even remember the last time I bought something on the Play Store. Nearly everything I've installed for years has been open source from F-Droid or was my own personal code that I wrote and loaded onto my phone without passing through any gatekeeper.
You can keep being condescending if it makes you happy, but you could also consider that maybe you don't know me?
I can't even remember the last time I bought something on the Play Store. Nearly everything I've installed for years has been open source from F-Droid or was my own personal code that I wrote and loaded onto my phone without passing through any gatekeeper.
You can keep being condescending if it makes you happy, but you could also consider that maybe you don't know me?
Everything you have downloaded that was routed through Google’s undersea cables was illegally taxed
I think the problem everyone is having is the government is seeing something that isn't there. We don't have a "lack of understanding" but are rather just so much more informed and educated then the legal system on this matter that we came to the correct conclusion while they failed to reach a basic understanding.
This is an incredible example of the hubris and ego of tech nerds. The court got it right, because the issue isn't tech, it's economics. The idea that understanding some code makes you more qualified than a judge to handle antitrust law is laughable.
It doesn't matter that 0.01% of users can technically install F-Droid. Reality, is that 99.99% of people fundamentally can't. Apparently the judge can understand this, and you can't.
It doesn't matter that 0.01% of users can technically install F-Droid. Reality, is that 99.99% of people fundamentally can't. Apparently the judge can understand this, and you can't.
But you said they technically can. Can you technically do this on iOS? Lack of technical knowledge means jack shit. Write documentation for laymen as to how to do it, because they could; make it simpler for them if you so wish. Or can I make a website that has a direct link (just a tap away) to an APK and have users install that on Android? What about an app for iOS? It is a matter of "difficult" (arguable) vs "impossible", is it not?
it's not about whether your platform is open or not, but about who's making the devices and what you're forcing them to do.
XBox is only made by Microsoft, there are no XBox OEMs, and Microsoft can do whatever they like to their devices. They're not forcing any manufacturer to do anything, because they are the manufacturer. Same with iPhones, Play Station consoles and so on.
Windows computers and Android phones are manufactured by many companies, and Microsoft and Google were engaging in anticompetitive behavior by forcing everybody who wanted their OSes to do certain things, and that's the problem here.
XBox is only made by Microsoft, there are no XBox OEMs, and Microsoft can do whatever they like to their devices. They're not forcing any manufacturer to do anything, because they are the manufacturer. Same with iPhones, Play Station consoles and so on.
Windows computers and Android phones are manufactured by many companies, and Microsoft and Google were engaging in anticompetitive behavior by forcing everybody who wanted their OSes to do certain things, and that's the problem here.
> Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox.
It helps a lot that they are the only sellers of the XBox. With Windows they were strong-arming third party manufacturers. The situation is similar with Apple and iOS. Because it’s “their” phone they have more control. Google was telling other manufacturers of android phones what to do, which crossed a line.
It helps a lot that they are the only sellers of the XBox. With Windows they were strong-arming third party manufacturers. The situation is similar with Apple and iOS. Because it’s “their” phone they have more control. Google was telling other manufacturers of android phones what to do, which crossed a line.
Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget to the end user very differently from a company that sells a piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end user.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.
"Principles" as in arbitrary precedents set by bribed politically-motivated lawmakers and judges.
No, people are correctly pointing out the fact that this is blatantly unfair. You are claiming that 2+2=5 because a judge said so.
If you are concerned about the "consequences" maybe you should start thinking about how open platforms are now legally disadvantaged to closed platforms.
No, people are correctly pointing out the fact that this is blatantly unfair. You are claiming that 2+2=5 because a judge said so.
If you are concerned about the "consequences" maybe you should start thinking about how open platforms are now legally disadvantaged to closed platforms.
After some reflection I'm not too proud of this comment :)
I think we just have different priors.
My belief is that, fundamentally, everything should be open. Users should have full control over their devices, and manufacturers should have no place in dictating anything about how they are used, what software can and can't run on them, etc. (Note that I'm not being anti-proprietary-software here; I don't think companies should be required to give away their source code if they don't want to.)
I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
My belief is that, fundamentally, everything should be open. Users should have full control over their devices, and manufacturers should have no place in dictating anything about how they are used, what software can and can't run on them, etc. (Note that I'm not being anti-proprietary-software here; I don't think companies should be required to give away their source code if they don't want to.)
I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow.
I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
If some random app now wants me to use their random payment system, I will 100% just delete the app. Not a chance. I will and do install apps outside the app store, but I will not start using random payment systems. In other words, although I agree the amount developers pay is too high, for me and probably many other end users, the most valuable part of the Play store is the payment system.
> The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow.
The solution to this remains the same as ever: curation of software packages. You can install any app you want, but you're probably going to use some front-end to manage that (Play Store, App Store). It's up to those platforms to curate what apps they host, and up to the user to delegate safety c he checks to platforms they trust.
The solution to this remains the same as ever: curation of software packages. You can install any app you want, but you're probably going to use some front-end to manage that (Play Store, App Store). It's up to those platforms to curate what apps they host, and up to the user to delegate safety c he checks to platforms they trust.
Why is this being downvoted? It doesn't break any guidelines, and it's obviously correct to boot.
Curation is the status quo, the only thing that would change is that people could choose to trust another entity to curate their apps.
Curation is the status quo, the only thing that would change is that people could choose to trust another entity to curate their apps.
There is a contingent of Hacker News that strongly opposes the opening of iOS to third party app distribution, usually with the reasoning that doing so would prevent Apple from strong-arming third party developers into abiding by rules that benefit users (no notification spam, billing for subscriptions must be centrally managed, users must be able to opt out of tracking). If developers have other distribution options on the platform then, if they're successful enough, they'll be able to have their users install their misbehaved (but popular/necessary) app by some channel that Apple doesn't control. Comments where I support opening of the iOS platform are the most consistently downvoted of any that I make, though most do recover to a positive score eventually. There are exceptions, but that is the overall pattern I observe.
Google does both. And you haven't made an argument or brought any facts at all to the discussion, you just vaguely waved your hands at the court system and said "A is not B".
It's because android is licensed to third party manufacturers and google changed the terms in a way contrary to law. Whereas Apple has had the same terms since the app store's launch and only used the app store on Apple devices.
It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only.
Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well.
Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.
Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well.
Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.
> Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically
Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%.
> Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only.
But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law.
I think that's garbage, though, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%.
> Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only.
But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law.
I think that's garbage, though, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability.
Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water...
To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open.
[0] - AARD Code, anyone?
[1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements
Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water...
To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open.
[0] - AARD Code, anyone?
[1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements
Yes, Apple has been consistently bad.
Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time.
I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time.
I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
> I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another.
> The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Agreed.
I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another.
> The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Agreed.
This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
Not really. They didn't have to go the iPhone route. They could have gone the 1980s Microsoft route: a fully closed source, propriety OS that they license to hardware manufacturers.
The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier.
Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier.
Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
> Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
This is an interesting point, but it now does make me ask other questions.
Mostly about historical players... Specifically, Symbian and Blackberry's OS.
Both are good cases to consider because Symbian was pretty close to your suggested model (and I'd argue, feature wise, was a benchmark for some of Android's initial state, as well as likely helping the decision for the preferred app language to be a form of Java for the sake of adoption by existing players.)
> All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform.
My other statements aside, I feel like Android really started stagnating/enshittifying various policies once WP was fully killed. And TBH I hope the DOJ brings up the treatment of Youtube on WP8/10 if they go ahead with antitrust action [0]. Pre-downloading maps? Here Drive (part of standard WP app suite) let you do it way before others. A polite non-nagging "you're going more than 5 over" beep? Showing speed limits whether or not I have a destination set? Still don't have those in base apps.
And wow, WP never had me deal with all of this carrier bullshit more than once per phone, vs every Android update is a new "oh hey uncheck all these boxes for crapware or try to find the way we changed the 'dismiss and do not show again (but really till the next update)' workflow".
[0] - Short version, The level of shenanigans around Google 'approving/maintaining' a youtube app meant that for a lot of my time in WPland, I could only view youtube videos through a browser. [1]
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
This is an interesting point, but it now does make me ask other questions.
Mostly about historical players... Specifically, Symbian and Blackberry's OS.
Both are good cases to consider because Symbian was pretty close to your suggested model (and I'd argue, feature wise, was a benchmark for some of Android's initial state, as well as likely helping the decision for the preferred app language to be a form of Java for the sake of adoption by existing players.)
> All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform.
My other statements aside, I feel like Android really started stagnating/enshittifying various policies once WP was fully killed. And TBH I hope the DOJ brings up the treatment of Youtube on WP8/10 if they go ahead with antitrust action [0]. Pre-downloading maps? Here Drive (part of standard WP app suite) let you do it way before others. A polite non-nagging "you're going more than 5 over" beep? Showing speed limits whether or not I have a destination set? Still don't have those in base apps.
And wow, WP never had me deal with all of this carrier bullshit more than once per phone, vs every Android update is a new "oh hey uncheck all these boxes for crapware or try to find the way we changed the 'dismiss and do not show again (but really till the next update)' workflow".
[0] - Short version, The level of shenanigans around Google 'approving/maintaining' a youtube app meant that for a lot of my time in WPland, I could only view youtube videos through a browser. [1]
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
> is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't?
This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!"
> so I guess that's fair.
Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"
This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!"
> so I guess that's fair.
Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"
> They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
The core difference is Apple had a bench trial and Google let actual people decide in a jury trial, which is a lot harder to swindle with legal technicalities, and also much harder to overturn on appeal.
Better to say Apple failed to lose. The court explicitly left open the question as to whether they are a monopoly. They just didn't provide any meaningful injunctions as a result of that case.
>The court explicitly left open the question as to whether they are a monopoly.
Presumably because that's not a question that generally needs answered. A lot of people growing remembering microsoft getting sued have this flawed idea that monopoly always equals bad. There are plenty of legal monopolies, companies don't get in trouble until they start doing illegal stuff to keep their monopoly. A lot of areas naturally favor a monopoly, that's not illegal or necessarily bad.
Presumably because that's not a question that generally needs answered. A lot of people growing remembering microsoft getting sued have this flawed idea that monopoly always equals bad. There are plenty of legal monopolies, companies don't get in trouble until they start doing illegal stuff to keep their monopoly. A lot of areas naturally favor a monopoly, that's not illegal or necessarily bad.
> Would that be more "fair?"
Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction.
Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction.
Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
One is a Federal criminal case.
The other is a Civil damages case.
Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable.
Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
The other is a Civil damages case.
Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable.
Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and Apple sued to hell until they comply.
While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative payment provider but putting so many warnings in place that no user would ever do it.
I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.
I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.
It's not quite as convoluted as you describe, and I don't think Android ever changes that setting on your behalf. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous. IMO it's a good thing that they provide you with appropriate warnings.
It's only dangerous if Google has better judgment than the end user. This may be the case for the majority of users, but there's a significant subset for whom it's not the case. It'd be nice if there were a way for the end user to nudge Google to step aside.
Convoluted how? I have literally installed third party app stores on Android many years ago and continued to have done so in the same manner to this very day. You download the APK and when you install it, you have to click two buttons to confirm (one to go to settings, and one to turn on installed apps from untrusted sources).
This is an insane take. Android handles side loading amazingly.
No clue what you're talking about. What device do you use? On a Pixel (Google's phone) you download it, then you open it (it warns you that it could have anything) and then it is installed.
[deleted]
I'll take convoluted over outright impossible any day.
I'll also take convolutedly unlockable bootloader over the vendor having access to my device even when I don't.
Sideloading and ability to disable including system app (--user 0) have never been easier. Its the PlayProtect which being disabled still insists on scanning apps intrusively and constantly nagging you while installing apps either package installer or side loading.
Does Apple make it easy?
>While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need
Huh? You download an apk and click a security prompt to allow non-store installations and it installs them, it's not particularly hard or complicated.
Huh? You download an apk and click a security prompt to allow non-store installations and it installs them, it's not particularly hard or complicated.
Two different cases in two different courts, it’s bound to happen. No judge has to abide by the decision of other judges except when it finally hits SCOTUS
The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.
> Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager)
Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.
Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.
This kind of low effort cynicism drives me crazy.
When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes.
Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.
When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes.
Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.
If I remember correctly the problem here is that in Googles version of an "open platform", they hide alternative app install behind fifteen menus of settings, restrict functionality (auto updates) and issue scary popups to users. These are deliberate choices that expose them. They also keep having to pull more anti-competitive moves with device manufacturers to keep control of Android.
> and where you can easily install apps through other means
When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for the first time.
There weren't scare screens, at least I don't remember any, but the upgrade flow was comically bad for apps installed outside of the Play Store.
Let's say you install 15 apps on F-Droid. Every time you want to upgrade your apps, you were forced to manually initiate, and then sit through, each app update as they're installed in the foreground. This was because of deliberate limitations in Android.
Whereas on the Play Store, you could hit one button to update all of your installed apps and the installations happened in the background.
I believe it was after Google was threatened with lawsuits that they modified Android to be less tedious when it comes to managing and upgrading apps outside of the Play Store.
Let's say you install 15 apps on F-Droid. Every time you want to upgrade your apps, you were forced to manually initiate, and then sit through, each app update as they're installed in the foreground. This was because of deliberate limitations in Android.
Whereas on the Play Store, you could hit one button to update all of your installed apps and the installations happened in the background.
I believe it was after Google was threatened with lawsuits that they modified Android to be less tedious when it comes to managing and upgrading apps outside of the Play Store.
I believe the right thing I wanted to refer to is unattended app updates, enabled for third party sideloaded stores only with Android 12 or so. Maybe 12 added it back after it was taken away at some earlier point?
I am an Android user for a long time (since Android 2.2) and used pretty much every version from then on. Google devices (from Nexus to Android One devices and now Pixels) pretty much always allowed unattended updates for a long time (you may be right about Android 12, my memory is fuzzy here). And I never remember having scary warnings for sideloaded apps, sure, Android made it more difficult to install them (by having a permission per app instead a global permission, but I would say this was a very welcome change), but it was never convoluted or difficult.
But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update.
So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update.
So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
I think what people upthread are talking about is allowing third-party stores (like F-Droid) to do unattended updates. That has not been possible until recently. Up until Android 12 or so (possibly later), I had to manually approve it any time F-Droid wanted to update an app I'd installed through F-Droid itself.
Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.
Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.
I don't remember how far back, but I remember third party apps working just fine at least, say, 5-6 years ago. The case was brought 2020, so I doubt this is true.
Android 12 was what fixed what I meant to refer to: unattended updates with third party sideloaded stores. It's from 2021 and probably didn't get 50% marketshare until ~2023 or so. Developers for those app stores had to deal with their users being out of date all the time to a much bigger extent than Play store and officially partnered stores.
And Android WearOS is still hard for side-loaded stores to work with at all without developer debugging mode I think and is tightly integrated with the phone stuff.
And Android WearOS is still hard for side-loaded stores to work with at all without developer debugging mode I think and is tightly integrated with the phone stuff.
Yes because Google said there platform was “open” and then changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting beforehand.
There is Supreme Court precedent for this
There is Supreme Court precedent for this
This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement with Google that promised me source code for Android or the ability to sideload on my Android phone?
For starters, it's the "O" in "AOSP":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope...
So, 2007-present, that's when.
Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope...
So, 2007-present, that's when.
Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.
AOSP is a separate initiative from Google to release the source code of Android to the public on a regular basis. Development of Android happens almost entirely in-house and contributions/requests from the general public are treated with minimum priority. The public AOSP repo is only updated with these changes after each new release of Android is finished. Google is not forced to release the source code, aside from their changes to the Linux kernel, which are minimal anyway as Android is moving closer to mainline. They may have separate agreements with OEMs that guarantee source code access but that's of no concern to Epic Games as a user/developer on the platform and not an OEM.
They actually did promise you could get the source code for Android.
From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/
> the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/
> the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
AOSP still exists, but it doesn't include most of the Google specific apps.
And Google has continuously moved away from “open” - that’s just the point
https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
This isn't just about which store is a monopoly, but about what companies choose to do with that fact.
Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences.
The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.
Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences.
The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.
the decision is indeed contrary to previous decisions about apple
Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading.
Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision.
---
IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary.
Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it).
Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.
Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading.
Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision.
---
IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary.
Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it).
Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.
Apple's business model is more amenable to current law's obsession with "intellectual property". If the government grants you a monopoly over a market, it's not a crime to exert monopoly power over that market. Apple's argument is "we can sell iOS however we want", and this works because the US has the best copyright laws money can buy. We need to fix them.
Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
Is the title confusing or am I missing something ?
I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit.
Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon.
I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026
Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon.
I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026
[deleted]
> is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple?
Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations.
Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1].
> Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted?
Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations.
Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1].
> Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted?
Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
> But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic
Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
> Surely politics has something to do with this decision?
Why? Plenty of judges rule without partisan predictability. This case doesn’t seem to have any more politics involved than any federal case.
If you have evidence of something interesting, sure, bring it up. But “maybe there are other interests involved, find the evidence for me” isn’t a conversation.
Why? Plenty of judges rule without partisan predictability. This case doesn’t seem to have any more politics involved than any federal case.
If you have evidence of something interesting, sure, bring it up. But “maybe there are other interests involved, find the evidence for me” isn’t a conversation.
It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it
>a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic.
Given the FTC going after Amazon, I think it's a relevant question to consider. these cases will inevitably influence if Apple is gone after, but who goes after them will depend a lot on the US's government.
Given the FTC going after Amazon, I think it's a relevant question to consider. these cases will inevitably influence if Apple is gone after, but who goes after them will depend a lot on the US's government.
There's no F-Droid in Play Store
I came here looking for this comment and you didn’t disappoint
e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced
Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
This court case was in Northern California.
The court having asinine double-standards when it comes to Apple? What's their HN account? edit: the replies basically just reinforcing the point, absolute :chefskiss:
I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third party app stores?
There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up:
In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties.
In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties.
In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization.
[1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store.
The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
> percentage
Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
I think there is a big difference between devices that don’t easily support running third party code and apple devices which they have had to spend lots of money developing multiple signing schemes, bug patches, threatening jailbreak communities, etc. just to prevent people from running 3rd party code
Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
Smartphones are special, since they're practically mandatory at this point, are the primary gateway to the Internet and digital platforms for a lot of people, and are specifically designed to be general purpose computing devices (even if unnecessary restrictions on who gets to write apps for them are placed on top of that). I mean heck, even Apple all but advertises the iPad Pro (an iOS device) as a computer [*]. I don't care if Nintendo locks down their gaming console. Nobody needs a gaming console. The Nintendo Switch's OS was made solely to run games and has very limited functionality by design. (I'm also overjoyed when I see people hack it, but that's a bonus and I have no expectation of that.)
For example, the EU's DMA provides a precise definition of "digital gatekeeper" and the rules only apply to them [1]. Gaming consoles and other embedded devices are excluded.
If there were more than two real choices available, I'd feel less strongly about this. And I realize that Apple isn't necessarily responsible for there only being two options (if anything, Google may be more to blame for this). But that's just how it is.
[*] I don't know if their marketing materials ever unambiguously refer to the iPad as a "computer", perhaps intentionally, but they've run ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...
For example, the EU's DMA provides a precise definition of "digital gatekeeper" and the rules only apply to them [1]. Gaming consoles and other embedded devices are excluded.
If there were more than two real choices available, I'd feel less strongly about this. And I realize that Apple isn't necessarily responsible for there only being two options (if anything, Google may be more to blame for this). But that's just how it is.
[*] I don't know if their marketing materials ever unambiguously refer to the iPad as a "computer", perhaps intentionally, but they've run ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...
What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
> What is the downside for the consumer here?
Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware.
To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would:
- Let me access functions like customizing firmware
- Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem)
- Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware.
To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would:
- Let me access functions like customizing firmware
- Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem)
- Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
> A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.
Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.
If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
If you don't want to install apps outside of the App Store, you don't have to.
If other iPhone users want to install their own apps without jumping through absurd hoops, let them instead of telling them what they can and can't do with the hardware they own.
If other iPhone users want to install their own apps without jumping through absurd hoops, let them instead of telling them what they can and can't do with the hardware they own.
I might switch now that Apple has been forced to embrace RCS - but the blue bubble lockout for younger people is/was unfortunately very real.
People say this as though teens and tweens aren't just going to find something else to latch onto immediately to bully the fuck out of one another.
I never dealt with the "blue bubble" thing but it's not like I wasn't mercilessly bullied for basically my entire education about everything else you could possibly think of past the fourth grade. I'm all for tackling bullying, I think it's fucking heinous the kinds of things schools let happen under their watch, but let's not kid ourselves that Apple opening up iMessage is going to do a fucking thing about this.
I never dealt with the "blue bubble" thing but it's not like I wasn't mercilessly bullied for basically my entire education about everything else you could possibly think of past the fourth grade. I'm all for tackling bullying, I think it's fucking heinous the kinds of things schools let happen under their watch, but let's not kid ourselves that Apple opening up iMessage is going to do a fucking thing about this.
In the EU only
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.
Epic's "First Run" program does all the things they got mad at Apple and Google about.
You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store.
Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform.
You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store.
Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform.
When Epic ships a phone or computer with the Epic Store as the only optional for installing apps or games, then we can talk.
Epic Store on Windows can't be accused of this monopolistic behaviour because Windows is not locked down and alternatives to the platform's distribution exists. Epic Store is one of those beneficiaries.
Windows and Epic's deals demonstrates there exists a market with competition and choices for developers and users. Developers can chose to take Epic up on their deal. Users can chose to use the Epic Store or not. The courts ruled that this choice does not effectively exist on Android because of all the dealings that Google did to prevent competition.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that Google suppresses alternative pricing models in the Play Store. You can not like a proposed alternative payment structure (as a developer), or not want to use Epic Store on Android. It would be great if the market could decide on what it wants here, instead of Google preventing any competition.
Epic Store on Windows can't be accused of this monopolistic behaviour because Windows is not locked down and alternatives to the platform's distribution exists. Epic Store is one of those beneficiaries.
Windows and Epic's deals demonstrates there exists a market with competition and choices for developers and users. Developers can chose to take Epic up on their deal. Users can chose to use the Epic Store or not. The courts ruled that this choice does not effectively exist on Android because of all the dealings that Google did to prevent competition.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that Google suppresses alternative pricing models in the Play Store. You can not like a proposed alternative payment structure (as a developer), or not want to use Epic Store on Android. It would be great if the market could decide on what it wants here, instead of Google preventing any competition.
All I care about is having some healthy competition in the marketplace again.
If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine.
Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.
If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine.
Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.
Tying Google's hands while giving Apple a clean bill of health isn't going to increase competition, it's going to solidify Apple's lead in the US.
The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to prevent Google and Apple from together duopolizing the entire mobile phone space, but this is not that.
The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to prevent Google and Apple from together duopolizing the entire mobile phone space, but this is not that.
The important competition isn't Google v Apple.
It's everyone else v Google and/or Apple.
Ironically, forcing this onto Google might be the best thing for Android, as it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple, but costs Google too much revenue to ever do it if left to their own decision.
It's everyone else v Google and/or Apple.
Ironically, forcing this onto Google might be the best thing for Android, as it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple, but costs Google too much revenue to ever do it if left to their own decision.
> it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple
It’s hard to believe the best way to compete with Apple is by being more open then they are.
If that worked, we would all be running some unix os on our phones.
It’s clearly an utterly false premise.
This is going to hurt google and do literally nothing to Apple, except perhaps scare some people into the “saftey” of its curated ecosystem.
It’s hard to believe the best way to compete with Apple is by being more open then they are.
If that worked, we would all be running some unix os on our phones.
It’s clearly an utterly false premise.
This is going to hurt google and do literally nothing to Apple, except perhaps scare some people into the “saftey” of its curated ecosystem.
apologies for the pendantic nitpick, but:
iOS is based on Darwin which is BSD based, and Android is based on Linux, which is heavily inspired by Unix.
So technically, we are "all running some unix os on our phones"... perhaps you mean some open-source OS? Even then, Android markets itself as being open-source (although I imagine they must add some closed source stuff on top of it).
iOS is based on Darwin which is BSD based, and Android is based on Linux, which is heavily inspired by Unix.
So technically, we are "all running some unix os on our phones"... perhaps you mean some open-source OS? Even then, Android markets itself as being open-source (although I imagine they must add some closed source stuff on top of it).
Apple XCode is required to compile code for Apple iOS. Android Studio is not required to compile code for Android.
Android Studio doesn't run on Android. XCode IDE doesn't run on iOS.
XCode IDE requires an MacOS device. Android Studio works on Win/Mac/Linux/Chromebook_with_containers.
Android Studio runs in a Linux container. XCode only runs on MacOS.
Apple does not allow, and per a recent ruling, and DOES NOT HAVE TO allow 3rd party app stores.
(There are already 3rd party app "stores" for Android like FDroid.)
Android already allows, and per a recent ruling, MUST allow 3rd party app stores.
In terms of Application stores, (after trying to trademark the phrase "app store" to anticompete Amazon) Apple gets protectionism for their walled garden, and Android may not have a walled garden.
Android Studio doesn't run on Android. XCode IDE doesn't run on iOS.
XCode IDE requires an MacOS device. Android Studio works on Win/Mac/Linux/Chromebook_with_containers.
Android Studio runs in a Linux container. XCode only runs on MacOS.
Apple does not allow, and per a recent ruling, and DOES NOT HAVE TO allow 3rd party app stores.
(There are already 3rd party app "stores" for Android like FDroid.)
Android already allows, and per a recent ruling, MUST allow 3rd party app stores.
In terms of Application stores, (after trying to trademark the phrase "app store" to anticompete Amazon) Apple gets protectionism for their walled garden, and Android may not have a walled garden.
Apple went with Objective-C; C with standard macros; IIRC before C++?
Apple built a new language called Swift.
The Java pitch was "write once, run anywhere" because you port the JVM, and J2ME.
Google rewrote many parts of the Java stack.
Google ported to Apache Harmony/ OpenJDK to port away from Sun then Oracle Java.
Google built a language called Kotlin.
Swift runs on MacOS, iOS, and Android.
Kotlin runs on Android/iOS/Win/Mac/Linux/JS. Dart lang also runs on any platform. Flutter also runs on any platform.
Apple built a new language called Swift.
The Java pitch was "write once, run anywhere" because you port the JVM, and J2ME.
Google rewrote many parts of the Java stack.
Google ported to Apache Harmony/ OpenJDK to port away from Sun then Oracle Java.
Google built a language called Kotlin.
Swift runs on MacOS, iOS, and Android.
Kotlin runs on Android/iOS/Win/Mac/Linux/JS. Dart lang also runs on any platform. Flutter also runs on any platform.
Then why is there one result for Google and the opposite one for Apple?
The main thing Google got in trouble for is all the emails and deals they sent to device manufacturers to prevent competition with Play Store.
Apple inherently never sent these emails. There’s no deals they made because they were closed from the get go.
Google created a market of “android app distribution”, and then put its thumb on the scales so it always wins. That is why Google lost and Apple didn’t lose (as much).
Apple inherently never sent these emails. There’s no deals they made because they were closed from the get go.
Google created a market of “android app distribution”, and then put its thumb on the scales so it always wins. That is why Google lost and Apple didn’t lose (as much).
Because the law isn't written the way fairness is written in our heads, and judges decide based on the law.
follow the money. Which judges handled which cases in which location?
but the non-partisan bailey answer is along the lines of "android promised freedom, IOS never did".
but the non-partisan bailey answer is along the lines of "android promised freedom, IOS never did".
So it's better to be bad than to try to be good and fail?
Based on the legelese here, yea. I guess an equivalent is how you can be a for profit corporation with no issue, but if you're a non profit and you honestly mismanage some $10k as an accounting error, you get the book thrown at you.
As I recall, the original App Store argument was "It would cost a lot more than 30% to mint CDs and sell them in Waldenbooks, so we're doing developers a favor by _only_ charging 30% to distribute."
There are a myriad of points which make this metaphor a insufficient argument at best (at worst intentionally obfuscating the nature of digital publishing and digital marketplaces as having similar physical analogues) in favor of the current app store landscape:
1. AFAIK anyone can manufacture and distribute CDs
2. The argument that anything below the cost to manu CDs is acceptable only holds water if you have an inefficient market that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of digital distribution.
1. AFAIK anyone can manufacture and distribute CDs
2. The argument that anything below the cost to manu CDs is acceptable only holds water if you have an inefficient market that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of digital distribution.
It was 30% vs whatever parties like Symbian asked at the time. Or other existing platforms like consoles where developers were left with less than 70%.
Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did involve a lot of expensive publishing
Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did involve a lot of expensive publishing
The problem is that cut hasn't come down in the last 20 years, because there's no competitive pressure within ecosystems to force it to.
It’s because no one wants to wade through the oceans of malware that exist online, and reputation is expensive to build.
I told my family many years ago now that they get no tech support for issues caused by downloading things outside of the App Store. I will download from outside of the App Store, but I have zero confidence that the vast, vast majority of people will ever be able to not get fooled, and if they do, they won’t be able to fix it.
With an Apple problem, my relatives call Apple, and the Apple tech support person remotes into their phone and walks them through a solution. Or gives them a refund.
And the thing with phones and computers these days is that they are your identity, they are your wealth, they are your life. You lose control of that, and you are in for a world of hurt. Someone can clean out your brokerage and bank accounts. The stakes are too high.
I told my family many years ago now that they get no tech support for issues caused by downloading things outside of the App Store. I will download from outside of the App Store, but I have zero confidence that the vast, vast majority of people will ever be able to not get fooled, and if they do, they won’t be able to fix it.
With an Apple problem, my relatives call Apple, and the Apple tech support person remotes into their phone and walks them through a solution. Or gives them a refund.
And the thing with phones and computers these days is that they are your identity, they are your wealth, they are your life. You lose control of that, and you are in for a world of hurt. Someone can clean out your brokerage and bank accounts. The stakes are too high.
How generous!
That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
No companies (at least above the “tiny” category) care about anything, they are paper-clip machines and the only thing preventing them from extracting iron from our blood is the law.
I will find it deliciously ironic and welcomed if precedents set by Epic are eventually used against them. The even more hilarious news though is that apparently PC users hate their platform so much though, that exclusivity on Epic is perhaps more of a liability. I read the other day that that new open world Star Wars game had “disappointing” sales because of that.
It's strange to me, because there's literally more competition in the space, but people are unhappy about it. PC games used to regularly be Steam exclusive for years on end, and now games are often available on multiple stores within months or a year from release, but people are for some reason unhappy about this fact.
For example, Borderlands 2 (on PC) was Steam exclusive for something like 7 years and nobody seemed to mind. Borderlands 3 (on PC) was EGS exclusive for 6 months and people got very upset about it.
How is it not better to have a game available on two launchers within 6 months than to have a game available on only one launcher for 7 years?
For example, Borderlands 2 (on PC) was Steam exclusive for something like 7 years and nobody seemed to mind. Borderlands 3 (on PC) was EGS exclusive for 6 months and people got very upset about it.
How is it not better to have a game available on two launchers within 6 months than to have a game available on only one launcher for 7 years?
That’s because people don’t actually give a rats ass about competition directly. They care about _cost_ AND _convenience_. Steam is great on both fronts and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.
I'm not sure why people would actively want their game to require either EGS or Steam, though, even if it's convenient. EGS has business practices that drive a lot of people crazy, and Steam has an awful security track record and was also convicted of anticompetitive pricing. (Though people seem to like Steam's business practices even with that conviction, which also always struck me as a little weird.)
It seems like not requiring either one would be the more neutral, agreeable position to take.
It seems like not requiring either one would be the more neutral, agreeable position to take.
?
It’s like putting an android apk file on your website for an app.
If you’re giving it away for free to friends, sure.
If not, how do you sell it? How do you stop people stealing it? How do people find out about it?
Obviously, you the answer is usually “you write your own installer / updater” and do your own marketing.
Maybe that’s fun, and there’s something to be said for owning the entire stack… but it’s a loooot of work and probably not a reasonable financial decision to make.
It’s like putting an android apk file on your website for an app.
If you’re giving it away for free to friends, sure.
If not, how do you sell it? How do you stop people stealing it? How do people find out about it?
Obviously, you the answer is usually “you write your own installer / updater” and do your own marketing.
Maybe that’s fun, and there’s something to be said for owning the entire stack… but it’s a loooot of work and probably not a reasonable financial decision to make.
>If not, how do you sell it? How do you stop people stealing it? How do people find out about it?
we solved that issue long ago: make the APK a thin client to the actual service you keep on a server. Devs don't care where you download your APKs anymore. that's what the 90+% piracy took from us: the idea of premium, offline games.
advertising is tricky, but if we're being honest with ourselves: google play has only been a hinderance to discovery these days. My ideal pipeline is uploading to F-droid and throwing an APK release on Github as well.
we solved that issue long ago: make the APK a thin client to the actual service you keep on a server. Devs don't care where you download your APKs anymore. that's what the 90+% piracy took from us: the idea of premium, offline games.
advertising is tricky, but if we're being honest with ourselves: google play has only been a hinderance to discovery these days. My ideal pipeline is uploading to F-droid and throwing an APK release on Github as well.
I was thinking more just use a third party service like GOG. But, yeah, I guess you could write your own.
yup. And that cost/convinience is how we get trapped in the FAANGs of tech. The steam gamers are naive if they think the same can't happen to Valve. Gabe won't live forever.
and as a last bit of irony, we're already seeing those backdoor deals being opened up as we see how there was a point to the price fixing argument Wolfire accused of. They could have just let Overgrowth sell on their website, and now Valve is playing a game of cat and mouse on whether they re getting mass arbitration or class action.
>and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.
Steam is another account I don't care much for personally. And steam has always allowed for third party accounts to be needed. You think then GTA 6 launches in 2029 on PC or whatever that people are gonna complain about needing a Rockstar account?
A lot of that "discourse" is just turf wars and entitlement.
and as a last bit of irony, we're already seeing those backdoor deals being opened up as we see how there was a point to the price fixing argument Wolfire accused of. They could have just let Overgrowth sell on their website, and now Valve is playing a game of cat and mouse on whether they re getting mass arbitration or class action.
>and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.
Steam is another account I don't care much for personally. And steam has always allowed for third party accounts to be needed. You think then GTA 6 launches in 2029 on PC or whatever that people are gonna complain about needing a Rockstar account?
A lot of that "discourse" is just turf wars and entitlement.
Because Steam is good and EGS sucks donkey balls. It's slow as shit, crashes randomly, and is missing boatloads of features. People don't object when a different store brings actual value, like GoG. They object because Epic's version of competition is just dump trucks of cash thrown at game publishers - that doesn't help the consumer any.
It's not unlike everyone here that loves to champion Apple even when the article is about Apple being the most openly evil it can possibly be, except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
It's not unlike everyone here that loves to champion Apple even when the article is about Apple being the most openly evil it can possibly be, except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
> People don't object when a different store brings actual value, like GoG
and look how they equated to sales. Just world fallacy isn't working out.
GOG may be more consumer friendly, but from what I could read EGS is the 2nd biggest PC platform in the US.
>except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
they've done plenty, just behind closed doors. They have their own interesting lawsuit situation that HN conveniently buried a few weeks back.
and look how they equated to sales. Just world fallacy isn't working out.
GOG may be more consumer friendly, but from what I could read EGS is the 2nd biggest PC platform in the US.
>except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
they've done plenty, just behind closed doors. They have their own interesting lawsuit situation that HN conveniently buried a few weeks back.
> apparently PC users hate their platform so much
This is silly too though, it's no different to Steam both are consumer hostile systems where you own nothing. It's just Steam had the early years where it built up good will through some sales.
This is silly too though, it's no different to Steam both are consumer hostile systems where you own nothing. It's just Steam had the early years where it built up good will through some sales.
That sounds more akin to a standard exclusivity agreement and seems much different (at least to me) from what Google got in trouble for.
Their vision, which I disagree with, of customer choice, is that its store is an alternative to Steam. Probably they justify their exclusives by not being a monopoly, which gets weird: steam has the monopoly numbers, but epic has the monopoly practices.
They got a few customers from their giveaways - they should stick to those and further improving their store, maybe some people will actually want to use it.
They got a few customers from their giveaways - they should stick to those and further improving their store, maybe some people will actually want to use it.
There's no such thing as "monopoly practices". Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Exclusivity deals aren't illegal. What's illegal is using your powerful position in a market (a monopoly) to prevent competition. It's really the "prevent competition" bit where companies get in trouble.
An exclusivity deal from an upstart could be how they actually enable competition to exist.
An exclusivity deal from an upstart could be how they actually enable competition to exist.
I fail the see the correlation. Epic is synergizing with its platform that is a tiny fraction of its market and its engine that is also not a monopoly (Unity still the most used engine). This context does indeed matter a lot. Hard to lock out competition when your competition is 8x the market share.
>Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field
of course not. But enemy of my enemy. As of now their arguments benefit the consumer. If they ever do form a monopoly and keep doing these tactics, we can talk lawsuits.
>Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field
of course not. But enemy of my enemy. As of now their arguments benefit the consumer. If they ever do form a monopoly and keep doing these tactics, we can talk lawsuits.
> synergizing with its platform
That's some beautiful corpspeak.
"Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"
That's some beautiful corpspeak.
"Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"
> This context does indeed matter a lot. Hard to lock out competition when your competition is 8x the market share.
If you're a new company and lack any monopoly power to abuse, I don't see the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing alternative strategies to compete.
If you're a new company and lack any monopoly power to abuse, I don't see the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing alternative strategies to compete.
Epic doesn't make phones that run Epic made OS.
> You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments
That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.
That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.
I don't get it. Epic is offering a different pricing model that might or might not be more advantageous to developers
That is literally what competition should look like.
That is literally what competition should look like.
From the judges decisions:
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Makes sense that privilege was taken away, given that Google is facing legal consequences for abusing their position in the mobile app distribution and payments markets.
There's nothing wrong with limited exclusivity deals if you are not a monopolist. And the problem with Google was not their exclusivity, but that EVERYBODY was forced to do it or jump through hoops with side-loading.
[deleted]
There were lots of times Microsoft filed amicus briefs against patent trolls and the like, claiming the need for a "free and open internet" or "open standards in the X space", while still in the hot seat for bundling Internet Explorer.
Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.
Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.
And we don't care about Epic and still want the benefits of their trials.
They just want max profits without paying any fees.
> they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform
Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?
Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?
Your defense has no merit to their actions -=-> "Well yeah; they're a software company."
You are giving them a free pass.
You are giving them a free pass.
Nobody cares "who's right" here; consumers just want competition because when businesses compete the consumers win.
List of extremely tired and boring things:
- Not fully understanding something, but having an opinion about it, with no attempt to learn more.
- "All companies are evil" yawn
Next time, can you try a more exciting criticism of Epic? We've been going through these lawsuits for four years now, every easy original thought has been thought and poasted about, you need to think a bit harder for your next comment.
- Not fully understanding something, but having an opinion about it, with no attempt to learn more.
- "All companies are evil" yawn
Next time, can you try a more exciting criticism of Epic? We've been going through these lawsuits for four years now, every easy original thought has been thought and poasted about, you need to think a bit harder for your next comment.
I also disagree with GP's post because you don't need to use any of Epic's software. At the same time, I don't think your response is in line with HN's guidelines and is unnecessary.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
I've been pretty anti-google on this topic (and a long time fdroid-lover). but this ruling is nuts to me, particularly where it says google "must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps"
I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
Maybe the committee will operate within the confines of this outline to set more structure and make this workable, but it seems very handy-wavey in how this is going to work...
I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
Maybe the committee will operate within the confines of this outline to set more structure and make this workable, but it seems very handy-wavey in how this is going to work...
One counter-take to this is the web itself: There's no curation or incentive structure to the web, yet it thrives in ways far outpacing the walled garden app stores.
and likewise, 90% of people still converge onto some dozen websites per region anyway. If people really want that "one true platform", they will congregate and make that platform a monopoly. Against their best interests in my experience, but humanity sometimes need to re-learn the same pitfalls every generation.
I think that's a critical piece that anyone opposing a more free and open mobile computing paradigm needs to recognize.
We point to PC gaming as a horrible state of affairs no one in the mobile world wants; but it really isn't. There were a half-dozen storefronts a few years ago. Today: Everyone is on Steam. There's EGS if you play Fortnite. I think Rockstar still has their own stuff, maybe? A couple blizzard games are still only on battle.net. Xbox has their app for Game Pass, but all their games are also on Steam. That's... it. Steam won. Its never not won.
It turns out that markets love centralization. Its an efficiency thing.
Mobile will be the same. Epic will have their store. A few others, maybe. You'll still download all the apps you care about from the App Store. Your user experience won't change (unless you want to give Fortnite a try).
What might change is: It gives a pressure point developers can leverage against Apple to negotiate better terms. Their services revenue will drop... maybe.
I say "maybe" because opening platforms and reducing prices also tends to grow the overall pie. See, there are companies like Netflix who refuse to support Apple IAP for subscriptions because the terms are unfavorable to their business. If those terms became more favorable: 10% of a million is more than 30% of zero. There are companies like Adobe and AutoDesk that refuse to build any meaningful software for the iOS and iPadOS platforms, because (in part) they would be willingly sacrificing the agency of their business to Tim Cook (for 70% of all sales; a penance). With storefront options: You might have to download the Adobe Storefront, but you'd, at least, have After Effects. No one reasonable would pick "not having After Effects" over being given the choice between using After Effects with Adobe's inevitably shit launcher/storefront and not.
We point to PC gaming as a horrible state of affairs no one in the mobile world wants; but it really isn't. There were a half-dozen storefronts a few years ago. Today: Everyone is on Steam. There's EGS if you play Fortnite. I think Rockstar still has their own stuff, maybe? A couple blizzard games are still only on battle.net. Xbox has their app for Game Pass, but all their games are also on Steam. That's... it. Steam won. Its never not won.
It turns out that markets love centralization. Its an efficiency thing.
Mobile will be the same. Epic will have their store. A few others, maybe. You'll still download all the apps you care about from the App Store. Your user experience won't change (unless you want to give Fortnite a try).
What might change is: It gives a pressure point developers can leverage against Apple to negotiate better terms. Their services revenue will drop... maybe.
I say "maybe" because opening platforms and reducing prices also tends to grow the overall pie. See, there are companies like Netflix who refuse to support Apple IAP for subscriptions because the terms are unfavorable to their business. If those terms became more favorable: 10% of a million is more than 30% of zero. There are companies like Adobe and AutoDesk that refuse to build any meaningful software for the iOS and iPadOS platforms, because (in part) they would be willingly sacrificing the agency of their business to Tim Cook (for 70% of all sales; a penance). With storefront options: You might have to download the Adobe Storefront, but you'd, at least, have After Effects. No one reasonable would pick "not having After Effects" over being given the choice between using After Effects with Adobe's inevitably shit launcher/storefront and not.
But this is already the state of things prior to this ruling. You can install 3rd party stores on Android. They can auto-update their apps just like Play.
The story about pc stores is way off. First there was steam, and for many years it was the only store.
Many launchers came to be, with half assed community features. They didn't want a thriving marketplace, they wanted a piece of the pie. People hated them and they died.
Recently epic store came, with a billion dollar Corp behind, and they are fighting the long battle. The free games are a nice thing (usually older offers or curated indie stuff), but the exclusive business sucks. Luckily it seems unpopular, and fewer brands esnt to adopt it - some are so strong they can do it, but others found out that they can lose their loyal costumers and fade out, eg Borderlands.
Many launchers came to be, with half assed community features. They didn't want a thriving marketplace, they wanted a piece of the pie. People hated them and they died.
Recently epic store came, with a billion dollar Corp behind, and they are fighting the long battle. The free games are a nice thing (usually older offers or curated indie stuff), but the exclusive business sucks. Luckily it seems unpopular, and fewer brands esnt to adopt it - some are so strong they can do it, but others found out that they can lose their loyal costumers and fade out, eg Borderlands.
I think the key deference here is that the web is open and people can build competitors on a level playing field. They don't have anti-competitive restrictions placed on them by their competitors (i.e. Apple and Google).
You already have the web on your phone. The sensible comparison for the (non-web) mobile app market is to the (non-web) desktop app market, and that's not a clear-cut improvement. I'd guess people currently have more mobile apps than desktop apps, just as you'd expect if the desktop app market were suffering due to lots of garbage/spam/malware from insufficient garden-walling.
> where every app store has the same apps
Can't you buy dyson vacuums at the dyson store, at target, and on amazon?
Personally, this is making android phones a lot more interesting.
Can't you buy dyson vacuums at the dyson store, at target, and on amazon?
Personally, this is making android phones a lot more interesting.
dyson doesn't sell third party stuff. If ikea was forced to sell all their chairs at every store, but only for 3 years. are people looking for chairs going to have better options for where to get chairs at the end of the 3 years? I think they'll just be confused and go to their previous buying habits (namely their favorite furniture store or google/epic/samsung app stores). I expect a mess with a lot of unintended consequences, such as conditioning people to think all third party app stores are the exact same, which could harm distribution methods like fdroid (though epic might be happy with that type of outcome)
And what happens at the end of the 3 years? If apps are pulled, are people who downloaded the apps through those alt-stores going to lose access to updates, causing security issues or a support nightmare when the users don't see new features?
We'll see Android users needing to have multiple app stores just to get all the apps they want/need, along with the updates. From a user experience point of view, that sounds worse, even if the competition is meant to make things better.
We'll see Android users needing to have multiple app stores just to get all the apps they want/need, along with the updates. From a user experience point of view, that sounds worse, even if the competition is meant to make things better.
Are devs going to be forced to support all the app stores too?
Will they need to go through N separate registrations, N separate support processes?
I can see a good number of devs going “eeuuuggghhhhh” and just letting an app rot, just only publishing to one store, rules-be damned, or just going to iOS.
I can see a good number of devs going “eeuuuggghhhhh” and just letting an app rot, just only publishing to one store, rules-be damned, or just going to iOS.
Will devs be forced to make accounts on all the stores in order to collect earnings from sales on that store? Are stores opt in or opt out from a developer pov?
Google can’t force them to use Google for payments anymore. Maybe the multiple stores will force developers to integrate their own payment processing that can be used across all the stores, because it won’t be tied to any of them.
Their local store surviving and expanding their operation during these 3 years could be enough of a benefit.
The store can plan for what they'll do 3 years later, so progressively injecting IKEA competitors in the mix and getting people to know the other options could lead to a durable business. Especially if IKEA loses enough sales that they'd want to keep selling their goods in third party stores to keep shelf space from competition.
To get out of the metaphor: if alternative app stores become big enough to thrive on their own from this initiative, app makers will keep pushing their apps other there. In particular this whole scheme assumes some level of compatibility, so the burden should be light enough.
The store can plan for what they'll do 3 years later, so progressively injecting IKEA competitors in the mix and getting people to know the other options could lead to a durable business. Especially if IKEA loses enough sales that they'd want to keep selling their goods in third party stores to keep shelf space from competition.
To get out of the metaphor: if alternative app stores become big enough to thrive on their own from this initiative, app makers will keep pushing their apps other there. In particular this whole scheme assumes some level of compatibility, so the burden should be light enough.
> I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
So what, it's how the music world operates as well. Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube have virtually all that one could ever want to listen (and I'd guess Youtube has the biggest catalog from all the pirates LOL).
I'm all for more mandatory-licensing options, particularly the movie/series space is long overdue for getting a few butts thoroughly kicked - all the streaming sites combined are now more expensive than a cable bill.
So what, it's how the music world operates as well. Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube have virtually all that one could ever want to listen (and I'd guess Youtube has the biggest catalog from all the pirates LOL).
I'm all for more mandatory-licensing options, particularly the movie/series space is long overdue for getting a few butts thoroughly kicked - all the streaming sites combined are now more expensive than a cable bill.
I hear you and sort of agree with your general point. Though I think I would love to see the exact same Google Play, but with filtering for apps with ads and IAP. Basically so I could filter for freeware, open source and paid apps.
> I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
The horrors of free will and choice.
The horrors of free will and choice.
Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!
Right, just like how they've done on desktop environments
This is exactly the situation for desktop games right now, something Epic is profiting immensely from. It's an extremely annoying situation for users, having a dozen launcher/store apps around contributing to bloat.
That's exactly the competition that keeps PC from having the hiked prices the likes of Switch/XBox/PS5 stores and having to pay $15/mo to play games with your friends online.
I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC in comparison to what the alternative is.
I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC in comparison to what the alternative is.
No it isn't, the competition is great and is lowering prices across the board, and no arbitrary censorship exists.
The desktop games market is much heathier and less dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
The desktop games market is much heathier and less dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
> It's an extremely annoying situation for users
This is where I see how long that battle will be.
The future where this "extremely annoying" situation is fully solved is Xbox XXX being un removable and the only Game Store allowed on any PC sold, with legal threats to anyone jailbreaking.
As long as user have a choice and control on their device, and competition is alive, we'll hopefuly have different stores with different rules and you'll be extremely annoyed I think.
This is where I see how long that battle will be.
The future where this "extremely annoying" situation is fully solved is Xbox XXX being un removable and the only Game Store allowed on any PC sold, with legal threats to anyone jailbreaking.
As long as user have a choice and control on their device, and competition is alive, we'll hopefuly have different stores with different rules and you'll be extremely annoyed I think.
I literally don't have anything but Steam installed.
More fair to say Epic is money pitting from, given discoveries from Epic v Apple and Epic v Google..
Speak for yourself. I love shopping around and comparing prices. Competition is not bloat.
> It's an extremely annoying situation for users
Is it? I regularly use Steam, Epic and XBox and occasionally Ubi, Larian and whatever the GoG one is called... and it's fine. It's just another program.
Is it? I regularly use Steam, Epic and XBox and occasionally Ubi, Larian and whatever the GoG one is called... and it's fine. It's just another program.
Yeah, it is. I don't use anything except Steam. If it's not on Steam I'm not buying or playing it. Making your game exclusive to one distribution channel is stupid.
How is it "extremely annoying", it sounds like it doesn't even affect you.
That's not really a valid comparison because the Microsoft Store and the macOS App Store don't allow third party stores on them. You have to "sideload" any alternative stores/apps you want. To be clear I doubt the hellscape described by OP will come to fruition but still.
Aye and it’s a fucking shit show.
Down with all “stores”!
Down with all “stores”!
Yep. Then consumers can decide which one is best for them. Then they can compete. Then the best features with the best pricing, no only for customers, but the cut for developers, can be discovered.
You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
How can I decide which store is best for me when the only store I can get Spotify from is the Spotify store? And the only store with Instagram is the Meta store?
If every store had to make every app available, then sure I'd have choice and maybe that could be super cool.
But nobody's talking about that. We're talking about a world where major corporations will make their apps available only through their own stores and can refuse to do refunds and make canceling subscriptions a nightmare.
I don't see any increased choice at all. All I see is corporations forcing their own stores, that will probably be far less consumer-friendly, and users won't have any increased choice at all.
If every store had to make every app available, then sure I'd have choice and maybe that could be super cool.
But nobody's talking about that. We're talking about a world where major corporations will make their apps available only through their own stores and can refuse to do refunds and make canceling subscriptions a nightmare.
I don't see any increased choice at all. All I see is corporations forcing their own stores, that will probably be far less consumer-friendly, and users won't have any increased choice at all.
I can definitely see that happening, but there have been examples of where large companies support broader market access over exclusivity.
For example, Google Maps isn't limited to Android, even though it could drive more Android sales. Instead, it's available on iOS because the potential market loss outweighs the benefits of exclusivity.
Companies are unlikely to limit apps to their own stores if the cost of shrinking their user base is too high. The key factor will be whether consumers are willing to switch platforms for specific apps.
For example, Google Maps isn't limited to Android, even though it could drive more Android sales. Instead, it's available on iOS because the potential market loss outweighs the benefits of exclusivity.
Companies are unlikely to limit apps to their own stores if the cost of shrinking their user base is too high. The key factor will be whether consumers are willing to switch platforms for specific apps.
But Google Maps is on iOS because there's hundreds of dollars worth of friction in buying a new phone. Google knows people won't leave iOS just to use Google Maps.
In contrast, installing another app store is just a few taps. Consumers want the app, and then will be forced into a situation where they've got 10 or 15 different app stores installed to support the 20 apps they use, because no corporation wants another corporation taking a percentage of payments or controlling app review.
It will be lovely.
In contrast, installing another app store is just a few taps. Consumers want the app, and then will be forced into a situation where they've got 10 or 15 different app stores installed to support the 20 apps they use, because no corporation wants another corporation taking a percentage of payments or controlling app review.
It will be lovely.
The reason that isn't too much of a problem is that if an app is only available on one store, a significant fraction of people will simply not install it. Businesses don't want to lose customers like that, but the mere fact that they could will force Monopoly App Store to act more reasonably.
We'll probably see 3-4 major stores that manage to get enough mindshare for people to actually install them, and a lot of apps available on a 2-ish-store subset of them.
We'll probably see 3-4 major stores that manage to get enough mindshare for people to actually install them, and a lot of apps available on a 2-ish-store subset of them.
> You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
I got an iPhone so that I wouldn't have to deal with the Android ecosystem. I go to the app store, install an app, and get on with my life.
I got an iPhone so that I wouldn't have to deal with the Android ecosystem. I go to the app store, install an app, and get on with my life.
okay, so I assume those who jailbreak don't live rent free in your head? That's all that's happening on a technical level. Making it easier to have other Cydia stores.
Amazon Prime Video... Netflix... Disney Plus... The choices are great...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Yes, they are. This competition means an enormous boom in quality content has been produced that would have never existed otherwise because of the competition.
Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
I don't agree. TV/movie programming, and the services they run on, are not fungible. If I have a show that I like that's only on a certain platform, it doesn't matter how good or bad that platform is, I need a subscription.
The problem is tying the content to the platform. All studios should be required to license their content under RAND terms to all other streaming platforms. Then the streaming platforms can actually compete on objective measures like price, reliability, video quality, offline watching, etc.
In this case I don't think we've gotten better services. I still believe that the gold standard for a streaming app has been Netflix (well, at least until a few years ago; it's started going downhill IMO). All the others have significant problems, whether with reliability or quality, or with UX. They've certainly gotten better over time, but I don't think I'd consider any of them pleasant to use.
For the longest time, legally, movie studios could not own movie theaters. We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more laws like that, and we need them to apply to streaming platforms too.
The problem is tying the content to the platform. All studios should be required to license their content under RAND terms to all other streaming platforms. Then the streaming platforms can actually compete on objective measures like price, reliability, video quality, offline watching, etc.
In this case I don't think we've gotten better services. I still believe that the gold standard for a streaming app has been Netflix (well, at least until a few years ago; it's started going downhill IMO). All the others have significant problems, whether with reliability or quality, or with UX. They've certainly gotten better over time, but I don't think I'd consider any of them pleasant to use.
For the longest time, legally, movie studios could not own movie theaters. We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more laws like that, and we need them to apply to streaming platforms too.
>it doesn't matter how good or bad that platform is, I need a subscription.
cool. and Netflix's binge culture works against them for subscribers who only want one show. A new season hits and I can spend $10-20 to watch it and leave.
It will depend on your perspective. If you watch a bunch of TV and movies everyday then you got a worse deal. But it also makes sense you'd pay more than me, who's last venture was 1 month of Paramount for the Knuckles Show (and I didn't even pay. I went to a friend's place).
>We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction.
I mean, it's not like the current endgame of AMC or Cinemark has turned out better. I paid $14 for the saddest hot dog I had ever eaten earlier in the year. someone will always try to fleece you if they have the chance.
cool. and Netflix's binge culture works against them for subscribers who only want one show. A new season hits and I can spend $10-20 to watch it and leave.
It will depend on your perspective. If you watch a bunch of TV and movies everyday then you got a worse deal. But it also makes sense you'd pay more than me, who's last venture was 1 month of Paramount for the Knuckles Show (and I didn't even pay. I went to a friend's place).
>We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction.
I mean, it's not like the current endgame of AMC or Cinemark has turned out better. I paid $14 for the saddest hot dog I had ever eaten earlier in the year. someone will always try to fleece you if they have the chance.
> an enormous boom in quality content has been produced
Hard disagree. The rate of quality content that I actually want to watch is no higher than it was back when I could view it all on Netflix, but the difference now is that in order to watch it all I'd have to have four different subscription channels.
I'm honestly not even sure the content quality isn't lower now that everyone is producing it with the idea of selling their still-unprofitable streaming platform. Amazon sinks a billion dollars per season into Rings of Power and it shows—the showrunners are visibly torn between trying to tell a compelling story and trying to meet executives' demands that they compete with HBO and milk the Peter Jackson connections for all they're worth.
Hard disagree. The rate of quality content that I actually want to watch is no higher than it was back when I could view it all on Netflix, but the difference now is that in order to watch it all I'd have to have four different subscription channels.
I'm honestly not even sure the content quality isn't lower now that everyone is producing it with the idea of selling their still-unprofitable streaming platform. Amazon sinks a billion dollars per season into Rings of Power and it shows—the showrunners are visibly torn between trying to tell a compelling story and trying to meet executives' demands that they compete with HBO and milk the Peter Jackson connections for all they're worth.
yeah. If I want to watch a show, I pay the $10-12, immediately not renew, and watch the show and maybe a few other things. And repeat if anything interesting comes on.
I don't need everything all in one place. Piracy was always the cheapest option if you wanted to spend time fiddling, but the current official means is much more convenient than the cable contract lock-in days.
I don't need everything all in one place. Piracy was always the cheapest option if you wanted to spend time fiddling, but the current official means is much more convenient than the cable contract lock-in days.
Yeah, and Crunchyroll, and Viki and a lot of other services most people probably don't know about.
I want it because I've seen the Samsung app store and am not inspired by the idea of more trash. People like curated gardens because they're curated.
I wish that was true, but the exit and prompt return of seemingly every PC game developer back to Steam doesn't give much hope.
can't stop business. I just want Steam to not get in my way outside of giving their share and giving clear feedback on their reviews and what is wrong with my releases. Open Source isn't mainstream, but I don't care about that.
Given current lawsuits, Valve does neither.
Given current lawsuits, Valve does neither.
That’s only because you can’t understand that I don’t want a package manager for my package managers. I just want to install the damn software and be done with it; and I’m pretty happy with the way Apple runs the App Store as an iPhone customer, even though I think some of the restrictions are also senseless as viewed through that prism and their developer relations has been a dumpster fire for close to 10 years now. None of that is enough to get me excited about some future great App Store competition.
> I just want to install the damn software and be done with it
So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.
So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.
If every App I currently use and will want to use in the future continues to be found in the App Store, that’s the plan.
The possible future where that plan goes off the rails is if developers start pulling their software off the App Store and stop following Apple’s rules because they can. Right now they can’t while remaining iPhone developers.
Like I said, there’s a lot that’s a dumpster fire with developer relations between Apple and App Store developers, but you always know where Apple stands:
1. Apple
2. Apple’s Customers
3. Developers
Yeah I’d like them to loosen up some of the restrictions, but it’s still to my advantage as an iPhone customer that developers who choose to develop for iPhones from the smallest to the very largest to even the government are forced to deal with Apple on Apple’s terms to distribute software.
Apple’s dumpster fire in developer relations is also only half the story over the last decade; a lot of the largest developers of the most popular apps on the App Store have also been at the forefront of innovating new and creative ways to try and circumvent even the smallest limitations on iPhones leading to Apple spending the better part of the decade coming up with new APIs, new entitlements and new legal contracts walking this tightrope between enabling or keeping enabled useful APIs while also protecting user privacy and security. It’s not an easy task they’ve taken up, and short of the government literally outlawing most of the surveillance-oriented business practices a lot of Apple’s peers engage in (practices which the government also benefits from), this is basically the next best thing.
The possible future where that plan goes off the rails is if developers start pulling their software off the App Store and stop following Apple’s rules because they can. Right now they can’t while remaining iPhone developers.
Like I said, there’s a lot that’s a dumpster fire with developer relations between Apple and App Store developers, but you always know where Apple stands:
1. Apple
2. Apple’s Customers
3. Developers
Yeah I’d like them to loosen up some of the restrictions, but it’s still to my advantage as an iPhone customer that developers who choose to develop for iPhones from the smallest to the very largest to even the government are forced to deal with Apple on Apple’s terms to distribute software.
Apple’s dumpster fire in developer relations is also only half the story over the last decade; a lot of the largest developers of the most popular apps on the App Store have also been at the forefront of innovating new and creative ways to try and circumvent even the smallest limitations on iPhones leading to Apple spending the better part of the decade coming up with new APIs, new entitlements and new legal contracts walking this tightrope between enabling or keeping enabled useful APIs while also protecting user privacy and security. It’s not an easy task they’ve taken up, and short of the government literally outlawing most of the surveillance-oriented business practices a lot of Apple’s peers engage in (practices which the government also benefits from), this is basically the next best thing.
Prey tell, how will I do that when, as has been extensively explained in this thread, every app will be in its own store?
We all know that's not going to happen.
If every company self regulates their own App Store, then who is going to go to ensure apps are trustworthy and reliable?
Imagine if Spotify had a Spotify store that required device id tracking for their ad network.
Imagine if Spotify had a Spotify store that required device id tracking for their ad network.
> Imagine if Spotify had a Spotify store that required device id tracking for their ad network.
I’m pretty sure the likes of Adobe and Meta would be literally foaming at the mouth in excitement over the potential for this.
I’m pretty sure the likes of Adobe and Meta would be literally foaming at the mouth in excitement over the potential for this.
Do you have anything to prove your claim? Any precedent?
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't. Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't. Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?
Streaming services
Streaming services what? I can download every streaming service from Play Store.
What users wanted: One streaming service from where you can stream or rent any movie or show available in the world.
What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.
What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.
users wants are company wants. one X is how you end up with a monopoly and an endgame where they enshittify the platform to cost as much as Cable back in the day.
I'm a bit surprised a community as tech savvy as this has frustrations over the idea of using multiple platforms. decentralization by its nature means you'll have fragmentation of content. But it protects against the worse ending of Youtube price hiking mulitple times a year and doubling down on adblock users.
I'm a bit surprised a community as tech savvy as this has frustrations over the idea of using multiple platforms. decentralization by its nature means you'll have fragmentation of content. But it protects against the worse ending of Youtube price hiking mulitple times a year and doubling down on adblock users.
The clusterfuck of the media universe is actually _because_ of monopoly. But it's not monopoly on UX, it is monopoly on the content.
If you want to watch the Lion King, Disney has your balls in a vice grip.
I would be perfectly fine with a hundred different UXes, if they could all serve me Lion King and I had an option to pay for it. Then it would be an actual decentralization. A syndicated system where I can access a movie or song on any platform (of my choice), and the copyright holder gets paid appropriately would be an approach most people in the tech savvy community would be happy with.
For all the noise journalists and the justice department make about big tech, there is basically ZERO action taken about the monopolization of IP that media houses indulge in.
If you want to watch the Lion King, Disney has your balls in a vice grip.
I would be perfectly fine with a hundred different UXes, if they could all serve me Lion King and I had an option to pay for it. Then it would be an actual decentralization. A syndicated system where I can access a movie or song on any platform (of my choice), and the copyright holder gets paid appropriately would be an approach most people in the tech savvy community would be happy with.
For all the noise journalists and the justice department make about big tech, there is basically ZERO action taken about the monopolization of IP that media houses indulge in.
Points at the netflix app, through which you can install bloons Tower defense
This but unironically. Openness breeds innovation and improvement, closing down systems never does. Safety cannot be the only innovation
That can only happen if Apple's first-party distribution terms aren't attractive. If the App Store is capable of standing on it's own, then third parties shouldn't pose a threat to it. Something tells me the lower prices and free software on alternative stores will drive adoption though.
I see where it says Google isn't allowed to do this kind of thing. I hope they were forward thinking enough to ban exclusivity deals across the board, or this is going to turn into a total goat rodeo.
The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.
The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.
This is a civil case in the US though
Who is going to force Verizon to allow other app stores on their contract phones?
That’s a nightmare scenario, and honestly, it’s not that far-fetched
okay. Then I just use APK pure and find the APKs there. See what freedom does?
Realistically, this never happens. making a platform isn't some cheap endeavor like a landing page for a website. Most people will stay on the play store and use play services. Those with more skin will consider alternative stores, and then lastly some will make their own platforms.
Realistically, this never happens. making a platform isn't some cheap endeavor like a landing page for a website. Most people will stay on the play store and use play services. Those with more skin will consider alternative stores, and then lastly some will make their own platforms.
If the phone manufacturers stop including the play store in the default install. Then would people still use the play store?
that's the funny thing. I think they still will, but the people up in Google apparently don't even want to risk the chance of losing any marketshare. That's why they spend millions to Apple to keep Google as the default search, even though many consumer's first instinct is to go to Google as is.
It's a strange strategy to me, but I guess I may underestimate however many people will just stick to whatever pops up first.
It's a strange strategy to me, but I guess I may underestimate however many people will just stick to whatever pops up first.
I like my app store called "the internet."
> and it must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps
That one feels a step too far to me. It seems like it should be the developer's job to share their app with third party stores, not Google's.
That one feels a step too far to me. It seems like it should be the developer's job to share their app with third party stores, not Google's.
Sounds like an easy mass copyright infringement case to me against any third party store distributing your app without consent.
I haven't verified but I'd be very surprised if this isn't preemtively covered already when an uploader agrees to Play Store terms. I don't believe Google gives any guarantees that apps will be exclusively only accessible via the Play Store app frontend and never redistributed via other channels.
That isn't "all apps on Google Play". It's "all apps developed by Google that integrate with the Google Play system."
Nah, it's absolutely all apps on google play.
> For a period of three years, Google will permit third-party Android app stores to access the Google Play Store's catalog of apps so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users. For apps available only in the Google Play Store (i.e., that are not independently available through the third-party Android app store), Google will permit users to complete the download of the app through the Google Play Store on the same terms as any other download that is made directly through the Google Play Store. Google may keep all revenues associated with such downloads. Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store. Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology is fully functional.
I think it's a tough call though. I get it, the court ruled Google had a monopoly, and this is supposed to prop up 3P app stores temporary until they can get footing.
The fact it's opt out is... good? I mean at least there's an option. But it also feels they are also forcing devs hands by making it opt out.
> For a period of three years, Google will permit third-party Android app stores to access the Google Play Store's catalog of apps so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users. For apps available only in the Google Play Store (i.e., that are not independently available through the third-party Android app store), Google will permit users to complete the download of the app through the Google Play Store on the same terms as any other download that is made directly through the Google Play Store. Google may keep all revenues associated with such downloads. Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store. Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology is fully functional.
I think it's a tough call though. I get it, the court ruled Google had a monopoly, and this is supposed to prop up 3P app stores temporary until they can get footing.
The fact it's opt out is... good? I mean at least there's an option. But it also feels they are also forcing devs hands by making it opt out.
If there 100's of alternate app stores, all with different revenue sharing agreements, payment processing systems, etc etc etc how are developers going to manage it all? Does a developer need to share their billing info with 100's of app stores? Seperatly agree to each stores terms of service? Seems like it will get awfully complicated awfully quick.
Yeah, it just feels like it's opting developers into a business relationship with third party app stores that they may not want, by virtue of their business relationship with Google.
Look at it a different way: if Google themselves did this as opt out, developers would be screaming bloody murder about how this wasn't the terms of service they agreed to.
Look at it a different way: if Google themselves did this as opt out, developers would be screaming bloody murder about how this wasn't the terms of service they agreed to.
thanks for posting the actual wording here, that makes things a lot more clear and a lot less ominous than my first interpretation.
Perhaps, but that will mean that you will be able to download the official apks from other places, which is what aurora store does but without having to use a google account (probably, but not sure about that).
Not sure how that will work for paid apps, but for free apps...maybe it's good?
I have mixed opinions here though (as a user and as a developer)
Not sure how that will work for paid apps, but for free apps...maybe it's good?
I have mixed opinions here though (as a user and as a developer)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Google is the developer.
Oh! Is this only Google's own apps? I read it as requiring Google to offer some kind of API to allow any app that any developer lists on the Play Store to be sucked into a third-party store. What would "unless developers opt out individually" mean then?
This applies to every app in the Play Store, not just Google's apps.
Love this, but Apple's the big offender not Google. Google's already pretty open, and they approve most apps. It's not hard to get your app on the Play Store, it's Apple and the App Store that make publishing your apps a nightmare.
Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.
Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.
No, it's the opposite. Apple has reasonable process with human support
Google Play is full of trip wires, you trigger one and your account is gone, your career of independent developer is over
Google Play is full of trip wires, you trigger one and your account is gone, your career of independent developer is over
I think the concept of lifetime bans from big tech platforms needs to be reevaluated, but there is not much difference between Google's "trip wires" and Apple's "red lines": your app is not allowed to exist either way.
Patreon faces an existential crisis right now: use in-app purchases or the app will be removed. Game streaming wasn't banned right up until it was. No amount of support has helped with these red lines - not even the committee they allegedly created for developers to challenge the rules. Their support has only helped in the absurd cases, like demanding WordPress implement IAPs or rejecting dictionaries for containing swear words.
Patreon faces an existential crisis right now: use in-app purchases or the app will be removed. Game streaming wasn't banned right up until it was. No amount of support has helped with these red lines - not even the committee they allegedly created for developers to challenge the rules. Their support has only helped in the absurd cases, like demanding WordPress implement IAPs or rejecting dictionaries for containing swear words.
"Why my apps will soon disappear from Google Play Store" was on the front page of HN a day or so ago. Enlightening.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41727933
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41727933
For all the people commenting on the discrepancy between this ruling and the one in Apple’s case: now perhaps you see the value of good lawyers. Apple was able to convince the judge in their case to fairly narrowly define the market segment at issue. Google failed to do that here. And no, it’s not as simple as saying they’re the same so this will get overturned on appeal to stay consistent with the Apple ruling. The market segment definition is case-specific and fact-intensive.
Good lawyers or BS legal system?
Cases aren’t decided purely by the law. They’re also decided on the facts, and the facts are what are entered into the court record.
It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring their own software and services over that of their competitors as part of their agreement with phone makers.
Apple makes and sells phones, including the OS, and services for those phones including the App Store. They’re not telling Samsung they must favor Apple services in order to receive an iOS license because they don’t license iOS to Samsung for Samsung’s phones.
Google and Apple both chose their own business plans here, which is their right, but it also put them on different legal footing when Epic came calling in Court because in theory, Android was supposed to be an open ecosystem that third party app markets could thrive on and it just wasn’t that, in particular because Google was putting their thumb on the scale.
It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring their own software and services over that of their competitors as part of their agreement with phone makers.
Apple makes and sells phones, including the OS, and services for those phones including the App Store. They’re not telling Samsung they must favor Apple services in order to receive an iOS license because they don’t license iOS to Samsung for Samsung’s phones.
Google and Apple both chose their own business plans here, which is their right, but it also put them on different legal footing when Epic came calling in Court because in theory, Android was supposed to be an open ecosystem that third party app markets could thrive on and it just wasn’t that, in particular because Google was putting their thumb on the scale.
What do you think litigators do? Their whole job is figuring out how to elicit, marshal, introduce and connect the facts that will prove their case. That’s just what being a trial lawyer is.
The facts are not just out there and whoever happens to have the better facts on their side wins. Litigators have to be able to identify and interrogate relevant facts, prepare witnesses and documents to introduce them, then shape them in a convincing enough way that they can argue the facts and law are on their side.
Hell, even appellate lawyering is really all about the facts in the end. We have legal doctrines and lines of authority for this or that legal proposition, but the letter of the law only receives its full shape in light of the various fact patterns they’ve been tested by. (This, by the way, is where the modern Supreme Court tends to show its cracks. Arguments before the Supreme Court are almost inevitably a step or two removed from the facts of the actual case that the Court is supposed to be adjudicating. Yes, appellate courts and the Supreme Court have to take into account that whatever they rule is going to have precedential effect and other courts will look to their decisions to guide their own work. But it’s striking how often like 7/9 Supremes deflect argument away from the particular facts of the case they agreed to review and focus on hypotheticals and “first principles” (which they don’t even agree on amongst themselves) and so on. Yet they always trumpet that Article III jurisdiction requires there to be a live case or controversy. Which they promptly themselves ignore. Can’t let, you know, actual judging get in the way of one’s shaping of the law!)
The facts are not just out there and whoever happens to have the better facts on their side wins. Litigators have to be able to identify and interrogate relevant facts, prepare witnesses and documents to introduce them, then shape them in a convincing enough way that they can argue the facts and law are on their side.
Hell, even appellate lawyering is really all about the facts in the end. We have legal doctrines and lines of authority for this or that legal proposition, but the letter of the law only receives its full shape in light of the various fact patterns they’ve been tested by. (This, by the way, is where the modern Supreme Court tends to show its cracks. Arguments before the Supreme Court are almost inevitably a step or two removed from the facts of the actual case that the Court is supposed to be adjudicating. Yes, appellate courts and the Supreme Court have to take into account that whatever they rule is going to have precedential effect and other courts will look to their decisions to guide their own work. But it’s striking how often like 7/9 Supremes deflect argument away from the particular facts of the case they agreed to review and focus on hypotheticals and “first principles” (which they don’t even agree on amongst themselves) and so on. Yet they always trumpet that Article III jurisdiction requires there to be a live case or controversy. Which they promptly themselves ignore. Can’t let, you know, actual judging get in the way of one’s shaping of the law!)
> What do you think litigators do?
You start off strong but for the first two and a third paragraphs maybe about two and half paragraphs in total, you wrote we’re not actually in any disagreement. So… yes.
I’m not really co-signing the rest but I’m also not in any mood to argue about the off-topic jabs against SCOTUS at the moment.
You start off strong but for the first two and a third paragraphs maybe about two and half paragraphs in total, you wrote we’re not actually in any disagreement. So… yes.
I’m not really co-signing the rest but I’m also not in any mood to argue about the off-topic jabs against SCOTUS at the moment.
Fair!
I had just read the transcripts from yesterday’s oral arguments and was feeling annoyed at a longstanding complaint I have about SCOTUS (pre-dating the Roberts Court as well). Mea culpa.
I had just read the transcripts from yesterday’s oral arguments and was feeling annoyed at a longstanding complaint I have about SCOTUS (pre-dating the Roberts Court as well). Mea culpa.
Yes.
Bias in a supposedly neutral court would certainly fall under BS legal systems, yes.
Bumping Droidify because it's great!
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.looker.droidify/
https://github.com/Droid-ify/client
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.looker.droidify/
https://github.com/Droid-ify/client
So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via F-Droid? Seems complicated.
They have apk's in the github release's tab, I assume you can just install those instead https://github.com/Droid-ify/client/releases
> the better F-Droid client
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
Droidify used to be much better because the official F-Droid client had a lot of problems, but now the latter is alright
The most interesting bit for me was "I won’t discuss the Apple case more than this brief outline since I’m ethically bound." This included a link to: https://www.theverge.com/authors/sean-hollister/archives/38
Did his wife sign an Apple NDA that applies to family members? Or does he not want to anger Apple out of fear of retaliation towards his wife? Either way, I don't see how the word "ethics" applies to either situation.
Did his wife sign an Apple NDA that applies to family members? Or does he not want to anger Apple out of fear of retaliation towards his wife? Either way, I don't see how the word "ethics" applies to either situation.
He has a potential motive to lie or to distort the truth. Or maybe he has not, but an outside observer cannot know it for sure. So if he will speak freely he will become a target of attacks based on his supposed hidden motivation, and it can happen without regard to his real impartiality.
So probably more than half of his household income comes from Apple, so there's a conflict of interest. The ethical choice is not to "try to be neutral", but simply to acknowledge that someone else who actually is neutral is more qualified to report on that topic.
It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.
It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.
That makes sense, thank you.
Yeah that's weird. Like, maybe they should have gotten someone else to do the story if the reporter couldn't have done a full job of it?
Oh! So I'll finally be able to add donation links to my apps? And links to both play store and f-droid??
Currently, if you do that, the review fails for "Payments policy violation" (for the donation link at least, link to fdroid should be allowed, although I think I had some issues in the past...)
Currently, if you do that, the review fails for "Payments policy violation" (for the donation link at least, link to fdroid should be allowed, although I think I had some issues in the past...)
I think it's more useful to think in context of vertical integration. Mobile phone software is very tightly vertically integrated such that a single company can control components that historically other companies were able to compete at providing.
Apple and Google not only control hardware, kernel, OS facilities, user land, software loading/download facilities, but also payments, code signing, and even venture into other forms of banking.
On top of that, they're actively blocking potential competitors to many (most) of those pieces.
Apple and Google not only control hardware, kernel, OS facilities, user land, software loading/download facilities, but also payments, code signing, and even venture into other forms of banking.
On top of that, they're actively blocking potential competitors to many (most) of those pieces.
"Google also can't:
Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first"
Huh, why does that sound familiar epic games store?
Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first"
Huh, why does that sound familiar epic games store?
I’m confused, I’ve been using 3rd party app stores on Android for years now?
From the article:
> Google will have to distribute rival third-party app stores *within* Google Play
Right now you have to side-load 3rd party apps.
Also Google must:
> * Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store
> * Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
> * Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
> * Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
> Google will have to distribute rival third-party app stores *within* Google Play
Right now you have to side-load 3rd party apps.
Also Google must:
> * Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store
> * Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
> * Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
> * Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Not as a first class citizen.
* It's only recently you could have unattended updates of applications.
* It was not possible to distribute additional app stores in Google play, third party stores had to utilize sideloading which includes "scary" warning messages
* Googles terms and conditions essentially required the play store be installed by default by vendors.
* It's only recently you could have unattended updates of applications.
* It was not possible to distribute additional app stores in Google play, third party stores had to utilize sideloading which includes "scary" warning messages
* Googles terms and conditions essentially required the play store be installed by default by vendors.
Epic being the true antitrust commisionaire, having achieved more than entire groups of countries .
The ruling may be on the extreme side but it's still good to see things moving back to a more open software world. Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better . (Just like how browser choice in the EU did not move the needle).
Any rule enforcing openness should be celebrated, as a win to change the culture of walled gardens that has plagued technology for decades
The ruling may be on the extreme side but it's still good to see things moving back to a more open software world. Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better . (Just like how browser choice in the EU did not move the needle).
Any rule enforcing openness should be celebrated, as a win to change the culture of walled gardens that has plagued technology for decades
>Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better .
ehh. We can discuss that all day. All I care is that any apps they don't allow should be able to find or make a platform that does allow it. Freedom doesn't mean that others will think like me and choose that freedom over familiarity.
ehh. We can discuss that all day. All I care is that any apps they don't allow should be able to find or make a platform that does allow it. Freedom doesn't mean that others will think like me and choose that freedom over familiarity.
Next up in the TODO list:
Force Google to open source Google Play Services and allow users to choose which which publisher's version of it they want to use.
That thing has become a huge proprietary spyware blob and without it the device is nearly useless. It's nearly obligatory for developers to code against it.
Force Google to open source Google Play Services and allow users to choose which which publisher's version of it they want to use.
That thing has become a huge proprietary spyware blob and without it the device is nearly useless. It's nearly obligatory for developers to code against it.
So, then, Apple is next?
No, apple won on the exact same claims in front of a different judge.
That's an unfair characterization of the situation.
Epic v Google was decided in a jury trial, whereas Epic v Apple was decided by a judge (as preferred by both parties).
The other big difference is that Tim Cook wasn't caught trying to destroy evidence, so the judge in that case had no reason to sanction Apple.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...
https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/05/01/lets-not-just-cha...
Epic v Google was decided in a jury trial, whereas Epic v Apple was decided by a judge (as preferred by both parties).
The other big difference is that Tim Cook wasn't caught trying to destroy evidence, so the judge in that case had no reason to sanction Apple.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...
https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/05/01/lets-not-just-cha...
"That's an unfair characterization of the situation."
Gonna strongly disagree on that one.
1. Apple is not next, which is the main point
2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
None of your points seem to matter as to whether Apple is next or not?
Gonna strongly disagree on that one.
1. Apple is not next, which is the main point
2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
None of your points seem to matter as to whether Apple is next or not?
> 1. Apple is not next, which is the main point
Sure, I agree with that point. I disagree with the rest of your framing why, which was a dismissal that "Apple won on the same claims in front of a different judge". The judge in Epic v Google didn't render the verdict (as that was performed by the jury), while the judge in Epic v Apple did.
> 2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
Sanctions mattered as far as explicitly informing the jury that they were permitted to assume the worst against Google. If you don't think that might have impacted the jury's decision, I don't know what to say. The fact that the judge who later handed down the punishment thought that the sanctions were necessary should also be relevant to any harshness associated with his ruling.
> And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction” — one that would tell the jury they should proceed with the understanding that Google destroyed evidence that could have been detrimental to its case.
> Instead, there will be a “permissive” jury instruction — the jury “may” infer that the missing evidence might have helped Epic and hurt Google.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/1/23984902/judge-james-dona...
> 3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
Yes, Donato decided the punishment (to the extent that the law gave him discretion to do so), but it was a jury that decided that Google exercised illegal monopolistic behavior. The judge doesn't have discretion to completely disregard the jury's verdict, as per the seventh amendment.
The aforementioned behavior on Google's behalf certainly didn't help garner any favor with Donato.
Sure, I agree with that point. I disagree with the rest of your framing why, which was a dismissal that "Apple won on the same claims in front of a different judge". The judge in Epic v Google didn't render the verdict (as that was performed by the jury), while the judge in Epic v Apple did.
> 2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
Sanctions mattered as far as explicitly informing the jury that they were permitted to assume the worst against Google. If you don't think that might have impacted the jury's decision, I don't know what to say. The fact that the judge who later handed down the punishment thought that the sanctions were necessary should also be relevant to any harshness associated with his ruling.
> And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction” — one that would tell the jury they should proceed with the understanding that Google destroyed evidence that could have been detrimental to its case.
> Instead, there will be a “permissive” jury instruction — the jury “may” infer that the missing evidence might have helped Epic and hurt Google.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/1/23984902/judge-james-dona...
> 3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
Yes, Donato decided the punishment (to the extent that the law gave him discretion to do so), but it was a jury that decided that Google exercised illegal monopolistic behavior. The judge doesn't have discretion to completely disregard the jury's verdict, as per the seventh amendment.
The aforementioned behavior on Google's behalf certainly didn't help garner any favor with Donato.
We're just gonna disagree on this, I think.
In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not legally a monopoly there in part because of competition from Google, Nintendo, and Stadia (lol). A suit from another company could result in a different market determination and a different outcome without being inconsistent with that ruling.
I'm very aware of the legal intricacies.
As for whether someone else will win, maybe, maybe not. Look up res judicata.
Keep in mind - the judge deciding the market is x will not affect whether it is considered the same set of facts. So if you filed a case with the same facts, or very similar facts, you wouldn't escape res judicata on the grounds that you think the market is different.
You would have to come with a different claim than federal antitrust law (state unfair competition law in a different state or something) or significantly different facts.
In any case, i strongly doubt apple is next given the state here.
As for whether someone else will win, maybe, maybe not. Look up res judicata.
Keep in mind - the judge deciding the market is x will not affect whether it is considered the same set of facts. So if you filed a case with the same facts, or very similar facts, you wouldn't escape res judicata on the grounds that you think the market is different.
You would have to come with a different claim than federal antitrust law (state unfair competition law in a different state or something) or significantly different facts.
In any case, i strongly doubt apple is next given the state here.
Agreed entirely, though I don't think a different set of facts is a particularly hard hill to climb. Possibly as simple as "the plaintiff makes products that aren't games and/or Apple directly competes with the plaintiffs offerings" e.g. Hey or Spotify. Finding that plaintiff who also has a ton of money and has a controlling interest who is at least as hardheaded as Tim Sweeney is a whole different issue, especially since the Automattic guy is so busy right now.
Both suits were brought over the same things, but the actual arguments presented were different.
i'm aware? How does that change whether apple is next?
> Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
But not on iOS.
[deleted]
The browser should have been the distribution mechanism and user agent sandbox for mobile apps. Unfortunately both OS platforms owned their own browsers and would benefit from controlling app distribution under the guise of protecting app quality.
It is also exceedingly ironic that browsers played such a key role in wrestling control from the dominant windows platform to the benefit of Apple and Google.
It is also exceedingly ironic that browsers played such a key role in wrestling control from the dominant windows platform to the benefit of Apple and Google.
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit.
Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers.
Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit.
Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers.
Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.
Epic was never "the hand of good faith" in these fights. They just want more money.
From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?
From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?
According to Wikipedia [0]:
> The events and initial actions on Epic's lawsuit against Google were brought on the same day as Epic's suit against Apple, but Google stressed the legal situation around their case is far different. Google asserted that the Android operating system does not have the same single storefront restriction as Apple's iOS, and thus allows different Android phone manufacturers to bundle different storefronts and apps as they desire. Google said they are negotiating with Epic Games far differently from Apple in their case.
I have no idea how the two cases are different, but Google said they were. And it sure sounds like Google specifically chose to take a different path, which ended up being a loser. Cautionary tale of hubris and stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
> The events and initial actions on Epic's lawsuit against Google were brought on the same day as Epic's suit against Apple, but Google stressed the legal situation around their case is far different. Google asserted that the Android operating system does not have the same single storefront restriction as Apple's iOS, and thus allows different Android phone manufacturers to bundle different storefronts and apps as they desire. Google said they are negotiating with Epic Games far differently from Apple in their case.
I have no idea how the two cases are different, but Google said they were. And it sure sounds like Google specifically chose to take a different path, which ended up being a loser. Cautionary tale of hubris and stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
Crazy that Google and Apple are in the top 10 of game revenue companies without making any games.
> Google also can’t: Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first or Offer developers money or perks not to launch their apps on rival stores.
Very funny, that's Epic's bread and butter on PC.
Very funny, that's Epic's bread and butter on PC.
Is the judge epic for their ruling, or is judge employed by Epic? ;D
I have a feeling, that headings become more ambiguous over time. OK this one is with capital E on Epic. Still fun to think about the other meanings.
I have a feeling, that headings become more ambiguous over time. OK this one is with capital E on Epic. Still fun to think about the other meanings.
Maybe stores should simply be uncoupled with mobile OS. Imagine a store, that has apps for various OS, run independently from the OS' vendor, Google, Apple, whoever. Then we wouldn't have all the issues with the vendors behaving like dictators about what can be on _their_ stores, because it is no longer their stores. Only question: How does it get financed and maintained, if not big tech is behind it?
That's what Steam is. It works on both Linux, Windows, and macOS, and it sells apps for all three platforms. Funding isn't a problem, as Valve takes a cut of sales. The whole thing is only possible though since the supported platforms are not locked down.
For this to work in any reasonable manor it should work more like package repos in Linux.
There is absolutely no point to any of the 3rd party app stores, if you cannot install your banking, travel or payment apps from them. Who cares about an EPIC app store, where games are ever so slightly cheaper, if you can't install the app for your government ID from that store?
There needs to be multiple store fronts, with the option of adding different package streams so that any store can carry any app. This is obviously going to be to confusing for the average person and will make the app stores unusable for most.
The whole idea of alternative app stores is idiotic, unless companies and governments aren't being forced to distribute their apps on all of them. Maybe you can have two app stores at the same time, but then I question what we actually gained. I don't want 3rd party app stores because Google and Apple are overcharging, I want them because I don't trust Google and I want to be able to use an Android phone while not giving Google ANY information at all. But I really don't care that Apple and Google are charging developers 30%, I really don't. I have only a few paid apps, and they where price just fine.
There is absolutely no point to any of the 3rd party app stores, if you cannot install your banking, travel or payment apps from them. Who cares about an EPIC app store, where games are ever so slightly cheaper, if you can't install the app for your government ID from that store?
There needs to be multiple store fronts, with the option of adding different package streams so that any store can carry any app. This is obviously going to be to confusing for the average person and will make the app stores unusable for most.
The whole idea of alternative app stores is idiotic, unless companies and governments aren't being forced to distribute their apps on all of them. Maybe you can have two app stores at the same time, but then I question what we actually gained. I don't want 3rd party app stores because Google and Apple are overcharging, I want them because I don't trust Google and I want to be able to use an Android phone while not giving Google ANY information at all. But I really don't care that Apple and Google are charging developers 30%, I really don't. I have only a few paid apps, and they where price just fine.
It's straight depressing that Google, who has allowed loading third party apks since 2008, is the one punished when their competitor with higher market share doesn't even allow that.
I just can't help but think of a world where every company pulled an apple. Not being able to install your own applications on your own device is horrifying to me, and we were just one android (apparently stupid in hindsight) decision away from that being the case.
Imagine if that was the case with pcs. 30% obligatory apple tax or you can just go release your own phone.
I just can't help but think of a world where every company pulled an apple. Not being able to install your own applications on your own device is horrifying to me, and we were just one android (apparently stupid in hindsight) decision away from that being the case.
Imagine if that was the case with pcs. 30% obligatory apple tax or you can just go release your own phone.
[deleted]
If the court is less consistent in its ruling than perhaps any tennager in the US in this case then I wonder what other cases they are adjudicating
Google will do an uno reverse on the EU
If Apple's store isn't illegal then they will switch to their model. Android will lock out alternative stores completely in response.
They'll probably rename Android to something else and say its a new, more secure OS.
If Apple's store isn't illegal then they will switch to their model. Android will lock out alternative stores completely in response.
They'll probably rename Android to something else and say its a new, more secure OS.
I'm not trying to be provocative or a downvote magnet here but does anyone actually have a concrete response to the concerns Frederighi raised about sideloading and privacy / phishing protections three years ago?[1]
Isn't it like very, very obvious that while you and I and everyone else on HN appreciate the power of sideloading, average users are more easily tricked into bypassing the protections of well-run app stores?
[1] https://youtu.be/f0Gum8UkyoI
Isn't it like very, very obvious that while you and I and everyone else on HN appreciate the power of sideloading, average users are more easily tricked into bypassing the protections of well-run app stores?
[1] https://youtu.be/f0Gum8UkyoI
Good. Google is actively trying to force everyone to have an account via Play Store monopoly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41517159
Now do Apple.
Now do Apple.
Looking to the day we can finally say goodbye to Google's SafetyNet.
That abomination should die in a fire and apps should be forbidden to use it, banking apps included.
>Google also can't offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Gee I wonder if these sorts of rules also apply to Epic Games
Gee I wonder if these sorts of rules also apply to Epic Games
But... It is already open to third-party stores and even APK side loading. Who understands what's going on here?
Which mean Tencent (Epic's parent company) will finally be free to open their app stores world-wide.
Why does this link to the verge and not the original source? I hate clickbait.
Android is not an open platform because in practice everything works on Google Play Services.
What's illegal. 1. Monopoly power plus 2. anti-competitive conduct.
Apple and Google both have #2 but only Google has #1.
"Illegal monopoly" is strange terminology. What does it mean. Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive conduct by a party with monopoly power is illegal.
Apple and Google both have #2 but only Google has #1.
"Illegal monopoly" is strange terminology. What does it mean. Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive conduct by a party with monopoly power is illegal.
Isn't Samsung's Store and F-Droid all ready third party?
This is truly baffling to me. Google is far from doing anti-competitive bs than Apple does. You can't install anything on an apple device without the whims of Apple. This calls into question whether you actually own your Apple device or not when you can't even tinker with it. Simply put, you don't own an Apple device.
Google's Android is pretty much as open as things can be, yes, from hardware manufacturers' perspective it is a shit deal that you have to install their entire suite of apps if you want to use Play Store. Yes, this thing is anti-competitive but Epic wasn't fighting along these lines.
It is not fair to call Google anti-competitive for wanting to maintain their supremacy on their own app. It's like you have a shop selling your brand's merchandise and you are very successful but are told by a judge to allow other brand's merchandise on your acquired customers. Truly wild.
With Android, you can always install competing app stores on your phone by going to the website of the developer. It makes zero sense to want to make things "more" open. Yes, Google warns you that you are installing an app from other location, but that is on the user man and is good opsec on google's part to not let any random user install apps from anywhere. There should be a little barrier to prevent apps from being installed and google's os does that.
There are plenty of apps in India which operate outside the purview of Google's Play Store and doing business of billions of $. Google and Apple both don't allow gambling apps on their platform but there are so many companies here that are distributing their apps through their website and succeeding and they are a big business at that. I doubt there are any other examples in the world of apps succeeding doing billions of $ in revenue outside Apple/Google stores.
The actual action needs to be taken on Apple's App Store who are the biggest offenders of walled garden and not letting users make a choice. I am pretty sure, if the users got to know that they are paying more for apps on their apple devices than their web counterparts, they would be up in arms. Devs cannot even convey to their users that they are paying more when they buy through app store.
This is ridiculous.
Google's Android is pretty much as open as things can be, yes, from hardware manufacturers' perspective it is a shit deal that you have to install their entire suite of apps if you want to use Play Store. Yes, this thing is anti-competitive but Epic wasn't fighting along these lines.
It is not fair to call Google anti-competitive for wanting to maintain their supremacy on their own app. It's like you have a shop selling your brand's merchandise and you are very successful but are told by a judge to allow other brand's merchandise on your acquired customers. Truly wild.
With Android, you can always install competing app stores on your phone by going to the website of the developer. It makes zero sense to want to make things "more" open. Yes, Google warns you that you are installing an app from other location, but that is on the user man and is good opsec on google's part to not let any random user install apps from anywhere. There should be a little barrier to prevent apps from being installed and google's os does that.
There are plenty of apps in India which operate outside the purview of Google's Play Store and doing business of billions of $. Google and Apple both don't allow gambling apps on their platform but there are so many companies here that are distributing their apps through their website and succeeding and they are a big business at that. I doubt there are any other examples in the world of apps succeeding doing billions of $ in revenue outside Apple/Google stores.
The actual action needs to be taken on Apple's App Store who are the biggest offenders of walled garden and not letting users make a choice. I am pretty sure, if the users got to know that they are paying more for apps on their apple devices than their web counterparts, they would be up in arms. Devs cannot even convey to their users that they are paying more when they buy through app store.
This is ridiculous.
I should also be able to sell any food I make at home at my local grocery store.
So many comments advocating for centralized tightly controlled technology.
Capitalism and freedom are truly dead in the name of small short-term conveniences. Or, most probably, invested interest in increasing share value for big-tech.
If the USA decides that monopolies are the only way it is going to lose the tech race. The death of AT&T created some chaos but a lot of opportunities for technological and business advancement.
Breaking all monopolies is the only way forward for a healthy competitive economy. Big share value gains just show that the system is not working. That there is no competition, no choice, just a rent-seeking economy that reduces value at the cost of everybody.
Capitalism and freedom are truly dead in the name of small short-term conveniences. Or, most probably, invested interest in increasing share value for big-tech.
If the USA decides that monopolies are the only way it is going to lose the tech race. The death of AT&T created some chaos but a lot of opportunities for technological and business advancement.
Breaking all monopolies is the only way forward for a healthy competitive economy. Big share value gains just show that the system is not working. That there is no competition, no choice, just a rent-seeking economy that reduces value at the cost of everybody.
Google will win on appeal.
[deleted]
Only fair.
Good. Android will continue becoming s*t show.
Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.