Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.
Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
The point is that Google is already open
It would be informative to know—by jurisdiction—the stats of what type of smartphone OS the key deciders had in their pockets.
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).
- 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.
- 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.
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...
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. .
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?
> 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
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.
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.
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
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?"
I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
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.
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.
There is Supreme Court precedent for this
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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_...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
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?
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.
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.
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.
An exclusivity deal from an upstart could be how they actually enable competition to exist.
>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.
That's some beautiful corpspeak.
"Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"
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.
That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.
That is literally what competition should look like.
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.
Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?
You are giving them a free pass.
- 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.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The horrors of free will and choice.
I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC in comparison to what the alternative is.
The desktop games market is much heathier and less dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
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.
Competition is awesome.
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.
Down with all “stores”!
You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
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.
Given current lawsuits, Valve does neither.
So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.
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.
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?
The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.
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.
It's a strange strategy to me, but I guess I may underestimate however many people will just stick to whatever pops up first.
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.
> 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.
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.
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)
Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.
Google Play is full of trip wires, you trigger one and your account is gone, your career of independent developer is over
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.
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.
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!)
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
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.
It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.
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...)
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.
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?
> 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
* 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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
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.
> 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.
From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?
> 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.
Very funny, that's Epic's bread and butter on PC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Now do Apple.
Gee I wonder if these sorts of rules also apply to Epic Games
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.
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.
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.
