Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
theverge.com
Google will appeal the decision: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23996902/google-will-appeal-the-epic-v-google-verdict
You are viewing a single comment
Google will appeal the decision: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23996902/google-will-appeal-the-epic-v-google-verdict
Look, I despise Google as much as anyone these days, and I'm glad they're taking a beating this time around, but at the same time, it's also kind of bullshit. And it's not even because you can sideload apps, or have alternate appstores on Android, but because we have yet to see the same standards being applied to Apple.
I don't understand, this is bullshit because Apple won their case? Do you mean the Apple case was bullshit?
Right. Apple is even more restricted but somehow won their case. Makes it all seem like bullshit.
The judge in their case decided that the relevant market was mobile gaming, not app stores or in-app payment processing, and since technically Apple didn't have a monopoly there, the whole monopoly claim by Epic was deemed invalid by that judge. Courts can be stupidly black & white sometimes but that's how it is and a whole case can be tossed out based on a technicality. Google v Epic however was a jury trial and Epic obviously took lessons from their loss against Apple.
There's a reason you have organizations like the NLRB, meant to be the "first step" before a labor case goes to a more general trial -- it lets a bunch of people who are actual subject matter experts (in the NLRB's case, labor law experts) be the first pass at reviewing the legal claims before a general court that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about gets involved. It lets you set the tone for the whole ensuing trial process, grounded in understanding and truth.
The average judge doesn't know jack shit about ANYTHING other than the technicalities of the law. Most of them haven't done a real day of work in their life. But being a judge gives you the confidence you need to think your understanding of the technicalities of the law can be applied to just about anything, even something you find utterly baffling outside of the trial.
We really lack a qualified commission or board to be the first pass for these big tech disputes. The FTC is asleep at the wheel. And the result is that our ongoing legal frameworks around these issues continue to be arbitrary, unpredictable court rulings based on random judges' limited understandings and gut instincts. It's a very bad situation.
In a similar vein, that's why the fascists on the Supreme Court are trying so hard to undermine and delete Chevron deference. Because when you want to use the courts to just enforce your preferences and write your own laws, having to appeal to subject matter experts just gets in the way.
On Android you can install unapproved apps and even entire app stores. The barrier to having people install your app is a couple of taps (approximately as difficult as it'd be on Windows when you've got to approve UAC a time or two).
So, it is kind of ridiculous in comparison that they lost but Apple with an entire walled of ecosystem that you can't bypass without finding a zero day exploit won their case.
With that said, I know a lot of people who only buy Apple BECAUSE of that walled off ecosystem and conversely I know people that primarily buy Android for their relatively open system, so I'm in the minority where I think neither Google nor Apple should have to change in this particular regard. Both companies suck, but charging the same price they always have for their app store isn't the issue I'd fight them over.
Not entirely true. Google has a history of making it as difficult as possible for other app stores to run without outright locking them out as possible.
Citation needed. I just tried installing the Epic store on my Samsung and it was literally a couple of taps, not even an actual warning - just a friendly dialog box asking me to allow my browser to install apps and that's it.
Used to be much, much worse. They used to force you to go find a setting called something like 'allow apps from outside the Play Store' and tick it, show you warning screens, then when you tried to install an app from it, it would take you out of the store to say 'do you want to install this from an untrusted location?'
Edit: and that's before we get onto the subject of Play Protect, which is used to wipe applications from phones that are contrary to Google's interests but not actual malware.
Google is a monopoly. Apple in many ways, is also a monopoly. They are lamenting that the latter was not acknowledged.
Definitely a case of "good, now go do apple again". The mobile marketplaces being locked down and tied to services is bullcrap. If I want a run of the mill open source android OS and to be able to use Gmail (or drive, or some other Google product ) I should not have to allow Google full access to the knowledge of every app I run and the screen time and my location information... Etc, etc.
But I do think the apple win on a technicality will be revisited at some point.
And to be clear, I freaking do not like Epic. But this fight they're on the side I agree with. Open up the mobile platforms.
Web search, sure. Online video, sure. Mobile operating systems in the US specifically? Uhh, no.
Its a 70:30 split between Android and Apple. So you have a choice between Apple's walled garden and Google's... ecosystem. Best case scenario its a duopoly.
Sure but OEMs of Android phones can still ship app stores competing with Google Play. That what Samsung (the biggest Android vendor) does with Galaxy Store.
Not disagreeing, but sidelosding is obvious for people like us who have tinkered with smartphones, especially back when most devices used to be 'open' and tons of 3rd party roms were around. It's obvious for us who know about adb commands and developer settings. It's not so obvious when you're a new customer who got their 1st galaxy phone - you'd have no idea there's something else other than Google play for apps.