Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
Great! Now do Apple
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.
At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the "you can't buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut" which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc
Yeah, the Kindle app pretty blatantly tells you why they removed in-app purchases.
In the US it does.
Yes, but US favour companies over people.
I'm pretty sure the ruling in this post is in the US.
That's why we are surprised. But given this went through, maybe they could go for it again who knows.
And it's two companies fighting, how far did the anti monopoly pushes against apple and google get before Epic took them up because they were a profitable venture?
Yeah but they also have more rights than the consumer, rather than the other way about lol
I'm pretty sure the ruling in this post is in the US
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
They have a 99% market share on iPhone though. Google has less on Android.
Who has the other 1% on iPhone?
Jailbroken I assume
...in the US
Like this case?
Which is all the US courts would be looking at.
No they don't.
They absolutely do. This case would only look at US market share, they don’t care about anywhere else. And why would they? Imagine a company with 10% US market share and 90% worldwide market share, would you expect US courts to deem that a monopoly?
In the US, market share of Apple is between 50-60% while Android is between 40-50%, depending on the source. Worldwide is more in favour of Android, but this is a US lawsuit.
"Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility into iFreespace and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time as per the iNflanational iFukU-nion that is a slight inconvenience for anyone not part of the of the 23.000.001 iToUrPPs living aboard the ilolTax Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23"
I don't understand. Android already allows other apps and app stores to be installed, and Epic already has an Android app store you can download and install without issue. What was the argument here?
Edit: tldr: apparently it is not good enough for Epic to have their own app store, they want to have their app in Google's app store and still not pay them money for purchases made in the app.
Google paid off other OEMs to make Google Play the default app store (much like they paid off other companies to be the default search engine) which the court decided was anticompetitive.
I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.
I wonder how that's going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.
Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.
Unless Apple also has secret deals
Apple doesn't need to make any deals at all because you simply can't install any other app stores, or any apps outside of the Apple app store.
That's the crazy thing, that they lost their case and Apple won, despite Apple having WAY more control.
Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.
The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time.
The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device).
But they can't outright control anything.
Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.
It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't.
I'm sure they do want them to do that, the question is how is Google stopping them?
By enforcing a rule that says apps on the app store cannot have an external paid app store. So that's why you download FN on sideload instead of the store.
So even if you download, purchase and install an app via a separate app store, Google still collects a commission!?
No I think Google tried to tell Epic they couldn't have their own processing for in-app purchases. That's what Epic sued over.
There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.
Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.
That’s exactly what sunk Google’s case though. They’re inconsistent. Had they most likely shown they’re consistent to other apps they could have been more likely to get a jury on their side (like in the case with Apple).
Why would they sue Google instead of just saying "nah"? Did Google do something to prevent them from having their own in-app purchases from their own app store?
Google and Apple both banned Fortnite from their respective app stores and that's what caused Epic to sue both of them in the first place.
Well, Epic instigated them to ban the app so they could claim the ban as a tort under competition law.
It's more that Epic added their own payment system to the app (and offered, IIRC, a roughly 30% decrease in Vbucks price for people who opted to use it instead), Google and Apple both responded by removing the app, and then Epic sued them both and even aired a special presentation in Fortnite. All in the same day. Epic intentionally did this.
No, then you won't even be able to use in-app purchases.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can't even be on the play store. So for an ordinary user you feel like you are hacking the phone. So naturally there aren't many alternatives. The only one that lasted is F-Droid, but it seems to be only used by advanced users who want to run open source software.
So simply, theoretically they should be able to do whatever they want practically everyone has to stick to play store.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them (and they of course charge 30%). This probably would still be ok, but then certain vendors don't need to follow the same rules.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
That's not true - they wouldn't be able to use the Google Play APIs for payments of course, but if the app is sideloaded they can definitely use any payment processor / method. If the app isn't on the Play Store then Google has no say over it.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings
It's really not as difficult as you make it seem.
Send a link to the user somehow (SMS, email etc); or user goes to the website
Click on the Download button
Open the APK
In the dialog box that pops up, click on the Settings button > then allow Samsung Internet
Click on the Install button
That's it. There were no "series of warnings" to go thru, no need to flip between multiple screens or anything. I literally just went thru this process to install the Epic store my Galaxy Fold 4 - which took only a few seconds in total - and it was in no way complicated or "scary" at all. And bear in mind that the audience in this case are gamers - people who are already familiar with the concept of downloading and installing programs on a PC, so it's not like you're targeting some tech-illiterate people here.
The only one that lasted is F-Droid
Not true again. Aurora Droid and Droid-ify are both reasonably popular, at least in the OSS/enthusiast communities. Yes they use the F-Droid repos but they also subscribe to other repos (Guardian Project, Izzy etc), so you're getting your apps from multiple sources.
There are also proprietary stores such as Aptoide which are quite popular in the Asian markets. Finally, you're completely ignoring other stores which are bundled out-of-the-box on many non-Google phones such as the Galaxy Store on Samsungs, Mi Store on Xiaomis, AppGallery on Huawei etc. Of course, in the western market the Play Store is the most dominant, but the Samsung store is reasonably popular among Samsung users (as they have regular deals on games and various other apps + some exclusives like Good Lock and other Samsung-specific apps), and of course, the OEM stores are also quite popular in Asian markets.
Not OP, and, correct me if I'm misremembering, but you did actually used to have to enable developer options to be able to sideload at all, and Android doesn't tell you how to do that.
You seem too certain that it's still simple, but everytime I'm installing a new APK my Xiaomi makes me wait 10 seconds and puts a big, red, scary sign saying how dangerous it is to side load, then finally the ok buttons unlocks and I install my app.
That's a problem with Xiaomi, not Google or Android.
No, then you won't even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn't realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can't even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can't even be on the play store.
Yes you can, and I have several times. You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them
But we're not talking about Play Store...
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
OP is mistaken - you can make purchases in side-loaded apps, only thing is that app can't use the Google Play APIs for that (obviously) - but they're free to use PayPal or stripe or w/e payment method. Google has no way of preventing sideloaded apps from doing that, and it's not like they can ban them either.
You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows.
Actually, there isn't even any actual "warning" - at least not on my Fold 4 - there was just one dialog to enable installation from unknown sources, with a "Settings" button that takes you directly to the page where you need to tick the box next to your browser, and as soon as you tick the box, you can click on the "Install" button to install it. That's it. None of the dialogs you interact with has any actual warnings.
But we're not talking about Play Store...
Epic is, in the law suite they just won.
So the issue is that they don't want to pay commission on in-app purchases after people download their app from the Google Play store?
I believe that is the crux of it. And apparently part of the trial exposed that some big players have special deals such that don't have to pay those in-app purchase commissions, or at least have a smaller commission. And that's what makes it an abuse of their market position.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
I read that but they don't expand at all on how they're doing that. I can buy, download and install games from EGS right now on my Android phone...
I can also buy things from Amazon or any other online store from my browser without Google Play.
They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing.
On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google's Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university's online studies.
Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it.
Needing an app to sign into uni
Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety.
Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least
Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too
I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure
In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial.
It is almost impossible to get it working without the app.
Ah, well in that case, even better
But that won't necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn't need to change how their apps function because of this.
I really hope you'r wrong on that. Anyways, it's a pleasure to see Google bleeding.
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
The Galaxy store app on my phone says otherwise.
The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone.
Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?
Are those all on the phone by default?
Edit: I didn't ask if some of them are installed by default, I asked if ALL of them are installed by default.
I can't speak for the others, but the Samsung Galaxy Store does come pre-installed. However, Google paid Samsung for the Play Store to be the default action for app installs. So you get both stores and can pick which one you want.
That's just two options from two big players who cooperate, and only on some devices.
The Samsung galaxy store comes pre-installed on Samsung phones, I haven't heard of it being pre-installed on non-samsung phones.
They are on their perspective devices. ie: Galaxy Store on Samsung, Mi store on Xiaomi, etc.
But they're only default on their respective devices right?
As a reminder, this is the comment you replied to:
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
As a reminder that was in fact not the comment I replied to.
Yes, depending on where you buy them from. My Samsung came with Galaxy store by default.
Amazon store and Galaxy store are absolutely installed by default on many devices.
So what you're saying is that two of them are installed by default on some phones, but not all of them? Because the comment they replied to was talking about app stores being installed by default, so I'm asking if all those app stores are all installed by default. Because it seems like only some of them sometimes get installed by default on some phones.
I don't know what's on every phone. But I can confirm those 2 are defaults on some devices through personal experience.
And there are also devices without the Play store by default. Amazon products are probably the best example, but they're not the only ones.
Don't get me wrong - Google does some terrible shit. But they're better than pretty much every other major software company on this issue. All the major game consoles and Apple require the use of their stores exclusively. Microsoft requires the Microsoft store to be installed on any modern Windows machine.
Yeah - the Play Store is the de-facto default and by far the most successful on the platform. And yeah - Google likes it that way and encourages it. But so does everyone else. The difference is that Google is the best actor in this area.
Google allows sideloading. They allow other storefronts. They allow other stores to be installed by default by manufacturers. They allow manufacturers to not include the Play Store. And they allow the removal/disabling of the Play Store by users.
Mi app store is, and on Chinese models is the only one.
The jury settled on the relevant geographic market being "worldwide excluding China".
“Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.”
Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including:
Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges
Google is dominant
Google shares its Play profits with its competitors
“When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim.
The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all.
For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way.
But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.”
Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means.
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
They're not disallowed on the Play Store. They just choose not to put them there specifically because they don't want to pay Google 30%.
But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing 3rd party app stores. Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers, since no one has vetted whether it is malicious (not that the app stores are immune from malicious apps) so I don't see that as an issue. I would see mandating the removal of those warnings as an issue.
The Play Store doesn't allow other app stores. "4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play." - Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement
Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers
I think "Computers" go back way farther than you're imagining. There was a time when you didn't even install software on computers. You just put in a disk and ran what was on it. We don't even need to go back to when "Computer" was an actual job title. Something that humans (mostly women) did.
The Play Store doesn't allow other app stores.
...huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
I think "Computers" go back way farther than you're imagining.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
...huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
To make it easy to access other app stores of course. You can use one web browser to download another can't you.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
Maybe too simply, because I really don't. Windows didn't give any warnings about installing any programs until Windows 10 I think. And even then it's only the truly esoteric and unknown to Microsoft.
Didn't Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
From some other comment I read, it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google's stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.
This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:
The "this doesn't make sense" crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store... but we can can all guess how well that would have went... not well. So the open source route makes sense.
Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn't control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That's not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn't comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That's appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.
If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they'd have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn't do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I'm not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn't be a surprise.
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can't find it anymore.
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn't seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can't sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.
Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.
I've heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?
I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.
That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae
Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.
Lawyers are bad, but I'm starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the 'wrong' judge assigned to your case and you're done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.
Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?
Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
Exactly
True, but that's more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn't have any relation. As far as epic goes, they're only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it's allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)
Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it when they are so much more restrictive.
Can this ruling be used in the future against Apple?
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren't caught.
The difference is that Apple is so vertically integrated, they can say that the existence of Android as an option negates any monopoly they might have on apps. Yes it's stupid.
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
That's literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge's interpretation.
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don't agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it's all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US--nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html
It's just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I'm glad this trial struck down Google's app store monopoly, but all phone OS's should be forbidden from doing it.
Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.
The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?
True, thread is full of both types
Yeah and honestly Im fine with courts opening up the platforms more to make at ths point, but the issue is that apple got the win. People cite incentives and back doors dealings on googles end, but apple doesnt need to they just control everything by default no questions asked.
No it doesn't, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn't in front of a jury, it doesn't give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work's security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify's in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic's approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
Increased competition is ALWAYS better for the customer.
You're forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
I agree on the concerns, but it's a virtually universal truth, so long as they're actually forced to treat other app stores fairly. We might end up with a true third party stepping in to claim the throne, at least until the mega-corps reverse all the optimization they've created for their own benefits (even things like searches for apps are not fully intended to benefit the user right now, things most people don't really realize).
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there's a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Amazon has/had an app store, it was terrible. Though I welcome competitors to step up after this.
Amazon still has its own app store open - mostly because it's the one Microsoft used as the base for their Android compatibility layer. I expect this ruling to give Amazon a breath of fresh air as "the alternative app store".
Droidify with adb or Shizuku can already do that. But it needs Android 12+. Then it can do unattended updates.
Problem is, ADB requires enabling developer mode, and guess what - my company also blocks access to devices with developer mode on! (Also, the fact that Shizuku doesn't work correctly over mobile because it requires stable Wi-Fi to fake a wireless debug connection doesn't help matters.)
Shizuku only requires WiFi once per boot. But it also needs ADB, so it sadly won't work for your company phone.
I think the Session Installer mode allows updates without a dialog for apps already installed by Droidify without dev mode or adb.
So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn't even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.
Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.
problem here was that Google was doing deals to undermine those things
Apple has no such “deals” because apple owns the entire stack.
Welcome to law, Apple is less monopolistic than Google legally simply because Apple built a better monopoly, by denying competition in the first place.
They do control Play Services, however. That's not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn't comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That's appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.
They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store.
Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.
Not just the degoogled open source Android disros either. Amazon has a commercial fork of Android with its own app store. There was Oppo's AOSP derived ColorOS which was not based on Google's stock Android. I don't think Google should control the core apps as tightly as they do on stock Android but on the other hand those apps sort of define stock android and the default user experience in the marketplace. Epic could roll their own fork if they wanted and substitute apps.
On the subject of Oppo, I think Tencent went after them and other Chinese manufacturers as well to get into their platforms. Tencent are the guys who push their own app store and one app to rule them that Musk has wet dreams about. I sometimes wonder if they are using Epic to wedge open US based app stores for a future WeChat/MyApp like approach. Not that the US government would allow that.
Valve created their own console and helped fund Wine development, presumably as a strategic move to counter Microsoft's platform control. I might be missing something but I don't see similar effort or innovation from Epic.
I believe Microsoft and Nvidia did deals with hardware manufacturers for years that helped exclude competition and those sorts of deals probably pose more difficulty in court. Google might have fallen into a trap and done something similar. Being vertically integrated Apple doesn't have to do deals with other manufacturers but presumably they have some deals with developers. Obviously Sony, Nintendo have exclusives, agreements with developers and tight control of their platforms as well that go far beyond anything I can see with Google so I do find it a bit confusing.
This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.
Unlike Apple, Google allows people to download apps onto phones running its Android operating system without going through its official app store, but the company strikes deals with phone manufacturers to favor Google’s official app store.
So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.
Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??
The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.
looks at epic "striking deals" to have games on their storefront
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
True. Tencent sucks
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.
Apple: this is our system and we've always been upfront about it. We're dictators of our ecosystem. You can't compel us to open up. Yes there's less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we've always made that clear to everybody. Forcing us to open up our system is like forcing Nintendo to allow Microsoft games on the Switch, bypassing paying Nintendo anything.
The courts say fair enough, that's correct.
Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don't. We're using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they're big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice than to comply.
The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your dominant market position.
You're looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That's not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
The thing here is that you don't have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don't even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I'm sure Huawei isn't using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while "designed to keep apps down", is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn't offered that deal they're still free to make deals with other app stores.
Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you're unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple's billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.
I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I'm not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they've specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn't and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?
Google made back room deals with other development firms to help suppress the use of other app stores.
That's the issue here. The collusion aspect.
It's very different than Apple.
* Allegedly.
What exactly is evidence that Google has suppressed other stores, and in what manner
? If you consider say, Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo etc - all have their own stores in parallel to the Play Store. And on all/other phones, you're free sideload any third-party app store.
Taking my Samsung phone as an example, I don't see the Play Store being promoted any more prominently than the Galaxy Store, nor do I see any blockers for using the Galaxy Store. I believe this is the same for other OEMs as well who bundle their own stores.
So tell me, where exactly is the suppression here?
While I agree, it seems like antitrust lawsuits gain a lot more ground if the defendant was paying people to switch from competitors which is what got Google here.
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.
i hope this one also smashes Apple's business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
I'm not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that...
It's not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.
Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That's why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.
While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it's worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.
The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively "smart". Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier's store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.
Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.
Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon's tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.
That said I do think it's a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,
Yup. I was part of Verizon's app development program and it was a fucking joke. Even if the dev tools and build chain wasn't a complete mess, and even if the dev license wasn't expensive, and even if it wasn't almost impossible to even get test hardware... Even if you managed to build something more useful than snake, you'd still have to wait months and months and months for Verizon to sign your apps and then months more before they'd be available on any handset. I'm legitimately not sure it was even possible for a small dev to get anything approved.
Open app stores were and still are amazing. I get that people want even more freedom, but coming from the trauma of feature phone development, I find it hard to get upset about this, especially considering Android makes it dead simple to sideload.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don't think so
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don’t think so
Sure smells like it.
Nobody was asking for a history lesson of the past that doesn't draw any real conclusion to the current situation, at the end of the comment.
I run e/OS, I don't have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.
Epic won this case against google...
Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.
I'm not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that's BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.
Seriously this is crazy. Apple somehow winning is way worse as there is simply no way to install third party apps on IOS. Android makes the risks clear but it's still at least possible if you click install anyway.
In terms of being a monopoly, in the US ios has more market share anyway. Google's lawyers must have really made some big mistake.
Both lawsuits are going into round 2, afaik.
So now Google will be forced to... allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren't suing for damages I don't really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
I imagine Epic doesn't really care about that so much as not giving Google 30% of in-game purchases in Fortnite.
But they wouldn't have to use Google's IAP service if they distributed Fortnite as a self-updating apk on their website.
Maybe, but that's not where the vast majority of people look for apks and part of the lawsuit where Epic says they have a monopoly.
And ask normal people to give their browser app-install permissions?
Those sound very scary, not a very practical way to get a lot of users
Google isn't being forced to do anything. The judge specifically stated they're not doing injunctions or anything. If Epic has another problem, "you can come back."
Now, that's still a ruling, and a ruling helps dissuade Google from doing certain things, but there's not likely to be anything "forced" here.
Currently, it's.more that Google isn't being forced to do anything yet. The judge has said a few things he won't do, but the final judgement on what Google has to do are "up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be."
If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be
As reported by The Verge,
Epic says it’s asking for three things: freedom for Epic and other developers to introduce their own stores without restriction, total freedom to use its own billing system, and an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution.”
Judge Donato says the last won’t happen: “We don’t do don’t- break-the-law injunctions... if you have a problem, you can come back.”
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
Huh? They could just do a Fortnite.apk
No the point. Most users won't install anything not on the app store.
Yea, but how is that a monopoly? There is even a fullon android AppStore from Amazon
A monopoly is about market share and access to a market, "there is also ..." doesn't cut it in that discussion.
The real issue here is that Apple is still allowed to do it.
Apple's app store may be a problem, but saying "someone else is also doing something bad" doesn't mean what Google is doing isn't bad & illegal.
And stuff like fortnite would never make it to fdroid as well. People seem to jump through so many hoops to not admit the obvious monopoly in play.
Fdroid is for open source apps.
Fortnite is anything but.
That was my point? Make it as in make its way to fdroid due to their restrictions.
Ah. My bad. I misread it.
Ah np
I don't think Epic ask that Fortnite is on any store but their own. They want their fully capable launcher on the dominant store.
Ik I was referring to previous comment mate. They were suggesting there are alternatives like fdroid.
Ah yes, year of linux vibes.
I don't like the notion that something having majority market share makes it a monopoly. The definition of monopoly, at least, as understood by me implies control of supply, not just having a higher demand.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.
Fdroid better stay as FOSS and privacy focused. I don't want to see Spotify or some subscription brand bullshit up there.
FOSS does not mean "privacy focused". It means the software is free (as in freedom) and the source code is open and available for modification and redistribution and there are already several subscription-based services on there that I am happy to support.
I'm aware of what foss means, it's why I out an "and" after it given fdroid has a separate focus on privacy.
Subscribe to what you like I'd would prefer if fdroid remained as a pillar of security and openness and didn't welcome in a load corpo cunts.
Can I introduce you to F-Droid+? It’s only $9.99 for the first 3 months.
IIRC, no one stops anyone from making their own repository that people can add to their F-Droid client. But I agree that the native F-Droid repo should stay (more or less) as it is.
Artificial media scarcity subscription models are much harder to implement with licenses like AGPL, but personal data crawlers still pose tremendous risks, especially in the future of technology.
I don't believe the F-Droid will ever be implementing any kind of payment processing through the app store.
How many game launchers are there on PC. There will be 100x more on mobile.
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn't Google's app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple's system which won.
I'm willing to bet that the judge and/or jury isn't well versed in either business or technology and made a ruling based on ignorance and confusion.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic Games Launcher free game downloader for games I forget I own. I'm very unlikely to start using Epic's services over Google's.
I'd have taken the money and run
I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.
Ah ok that's def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.
Hadn't considered it.
I’d have taken the money and run
That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.
Sometimes it's okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it's usually worth the try.
This whole thing stinks. It’s the kind of lawsuit where you wish both parties could lose. The whole walled garden concept sucks, but this doesn’t exactly benefit consumers. Nobody wants a dozen different app stores where we need to set up accounts and payment info - not consumers and not small to medium size developers.
If Epic gets what they’re asking for it sure as hell won’t be what they want. Google still controls the OS so they can just make some shitty third party app store API with requirements just as onerous as IAP that puts everyone else at a disadvantage. If I’m Google, my new motto is “Android’s not done until Fortnite won’t run”.
I’m confused how this is a win for consumers, it just seems like two companies arguing over who gets to rake in more money.
That's how I feel about it too . Can someone explain why I should care ?
They accidentally make rules that work for little guys also.
Maybe Epic can finally build their new HQ now
or invest in Software that works on Linux
They invested in Godot, Lutris, and SDL.
They tore down most of the mall. It'd be nice for them to do something on the abandoned lot of rubble.
So far all they've put up are solar powered security cameras.
Then fire a few employees.
Cunting cunting cunts.
Those monny cunning fun kings runts
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.
Mind you, we don’t know what Epic has actually won quite yet — that’s up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android, and we don’t yet know how or even whether the judge might grant those wishes.
Both parties will meet with Judge Donato in the second week of January to discuss potential remedies.
Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic’s additional request for an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution,” as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.
We’ll replace it with the final signed form once we have access to a digital copy.
The original article contains 492 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
9
'It's a win for everyone" except if Google (and Apple) were to start playing "fair": no more restriction on apps, but they charge full price for the service of hosting and providing a searchable store to something million users. That way, only big business that can pay for that kind of service will be able to use each platform's "main" store, and every (big business owner) will be happy.
There's no free meal in there. Not for the majority of users, at least.
Fuck both companies but fuck Epic more.
I have no issue with Epic.
That terms of service are reasonable and they don't charge ridiculous rates for commercially using their products.
Their biggest crime is their launcher is annoying, that's about it
You don't need to use their launcher, there are other alternatives like Legendary, which can be used with Playnite.
Poor gamers having to deal with competitors to steam.
Competition is good. Poaching games isn’t. And how exactly is it competition if I have to use both to play my games?
If Epic really wanted to compete they’d compete in features, like GoG does.
Edit: Also if the Epic hate were really just about gamers hating competition to Steam, then GoG would be getting hate too.
The launcher is annoying, but not enough for me to really care.
It's basically a different icon and you can install games in such a way that they just click on the icon on the desktop and you don't need to worry about the launcher at all.
But as far as their products go they're fine, they offer good quality products for reasonable prices, they don't seem to take an unrealistic cut of proceeds for games on the platform. They certainly have never attempted to pull anything like Unity has done.
There's plenty not to like about their working conditions. Just like any other AAA developer.
I mean maybe but that's not really what I'm talking about
What's with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?
It's a shitty company who happen to be in the right side of one lawsuit at the moment
It was a genuine question not rhetorical. Why do they suck?
Lol scrolling the front page of that is just like a bunch of whataboutism and hypothetical stretches about how things might be and people hating on fortnite for being fortnite. I'm open to real reasons but I'm not reading more than a dozen fluff nonsense opinions to get to them.
...for tgeir own wallet.
Don't kid yourself, that they are doing it from the kindness of their heart...
Google used to allow third party payments. It turned out to be expensive.
This is like forcing Walmart to let companies take up space in their stores rent free and process their own payments. When it turns out a bunch of those little stores are stealing personal information and credit card info and money, those customers go to the Walmart service desk and when Walmart employees shrug and say, "I don't know what the fuck those guys are doing. You see, we give you the big store, but once you step into that smaller store hey are you falling asleep?" it's national news and it's Walmart's fault and they're called to testify in front of congress to get yelled at for not protecting customers. This is a weird precedent.
I don't agree with Google's decision to force payments through Google. Since congress and courts and media expect Google to police the safety of all apps downloaded from the Play Store, I can't think of a better solution that also respects privacy, isn't, "We'll monitor everything every app does, but pinky swear it's just so we can make sure they're being nice to you."
Great! Now do Apple
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.
At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the "you can't buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut" which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc
Yeah, the Kindle app pretty blatantly tells you why they removed in-app purchases.
In the US it does.
Yes, but US favour companies over people.
I'm pretty sure the ruling in this post is in the US.
That's why we are surprised. But given this went through, maybe they could go for it again who knows.
And it's two companies fighting, how far did the anti monopoly pushes against apple and google get before Epic took them up because they were a profitable venture?
Yeah but they also have more rights than the consumer, rather than the other way about lol
I'm pretty sure the ruling in this post is in the US
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
They have a 99% market share on iPhone though. Google has less on Android.
Who has the other 1% on iPhone?
Jailbroken I assume
...in the US
Like this case?
Which is all the US courts would be looking at.
No they don't.
They absolutely do. This case would only look at US market share, they don’t care about anywhere else. And why would they? Imagine a company with 10% US market share and 90% worldwide market share, would you expect US courts to deem that a monopoly?
In the US, market share of Apple is between 50-60% while Android is between 40-50%, depending on the source. Worldwide is more in favour of Android, but this is a US lawsuit.
"Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility into iFreespace and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time as per the iNflanational iFukU-nion that is a slight inconvenience for anyone not part of the of the 23.000.001 iToUrPPs living aboard the ilolTax Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23"
And consoles.
It's not an apples to apples comparable situation. Pun intended!
Why? Just don't buy apple.
That isn't really relevant when it comes to holding them to a different legal standard.
And if you don't own apple products, why would you care?
Exactly. The locked down nature is part of the Apple experience, this is what their customers are paying for
The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn't it?
Apple doesn't licence out their operating system.
I don't understand. Android already allows other apps and app stores to be installed, and Epic already has an Android app store you can download and install without issue. What was the argument here?
Edit: tldr: apparently it is not good enough for Epic to have their own app store, they want to have their app in Google's app store and still not pay them money for purchases made in the app.
Google paid off other OEMs to make Google Play the default app store (much like they paid off other companies to be the default search engine) which the court decided was anticompetitive.
I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.
I wonder how that's going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.
Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.
Apple doesn't need to make any deals at all because you simply can't install any other app stores, or any apps outside of the Apple app store.
That's the crazy thing, that they lost their case and Apple won, despite Apple having WAY more control.
Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.
The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time.
The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device).
But they can't outright control anything.
Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.
It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't.
I'm sure they do want them to do that, the question is how is Google stopping them?
By enforcing a rule that says apps on the app store cannot have an external paid app store. So that's why you download FN on sideload instead of the store.
So even if you download, purchase and install an app via a separate app store, Google still collects a commission!?
No I think Google tried to tell Epic they couldn't have their own processing for in-app purchases. That's what Epic sued over.
There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.
Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.
That’s exactly what sunk Google’s case though. They’re inconsistent. Had they most likely shown they’re consistent to other apps they could have been more likely to get a jury on their side (like in the case with Apple).
Why would they sue Google instead of just saying "nah"? Did Google do something to prevent them from having their own in-app purchases from their own app store?
Google and Apple both banned Fortnite from their respective app stores and that's what caused Epic to sue both of them in the first place.
Well, Epic instigated them to ban the app so they could claim the ban as a tort under competition law.
It's more that Epic added their own payment system to the app (and offered, IIRC, a roughly 30% decrease in Vbucks price for people who opted to use it instead), Google and Apple both responded by removing the app, and then Epic sued them both and even aired a special presentation in Fortnite. All in the same day. Epic intentionally did this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
special presentation
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
No, then you won't even be able to use in-app purchases.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can't even be on the play store. So for an ordinary user you feel like you are hacking the phone. So naturally there aren't many alternatives. The only one that lasted is F-Droid, but it seems to be only used by advanced users who want to run open source software.
So simply, theoretically they should be able to do whatever they want practically everyone has to stick to play store.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them (and they of course charge 30%). This probably would still be ok, but then certain vendors don't need to follow the same rules.
That's not true - they wouldn't be able to use the Google Play APIs for payments of course, but if the app is sideloaded they can definitely use any payment processor / method. If the app isn't on the Play Store then Google has no say over it.
It's really not as difficult as you make it seem.
Send a link to the user somehow (SMS, email etc); or user goes to the website
Click on the Download button
Open the APK
In the dialog box that pops up, click on the Settings button > then allow Samsung Internet
Click on the Install button
That's it. There were no "series of warnings" to go thru, no need to flip between multiple screens or anything. I literally just went thru this process to install the Epic store my Galaxy Fold 4 - which took only a few seconds in total - and it was in no way complicated or "scary" at all. And bear in mind that the audience in this case are gamers - people who are already familiar with the concept of downloading and installing programs on a PC, so it's not like you're targeting some tech-illiterate people here.
Not true again. Aurora Droid and Droid-ify are both reasonably popular, at least in the OSS/enthusiast communities. Yes they use the F-Droid repos but they also subscribe to other repos (Guardian Project, Izzy etc), so you're getting your apps from multiple sources.
There are also proprietary stores such as Aptoide which are quite popular in the Asian markets. Finally, you're completely ignoring other stores which are bundled out-of-the-box on many non-Google phones such as the Galaxy Store on Samsungs, Mi Store on Xiaomis, AppGallery on Huawei etc. Of course, in the western market the Play Store is the most dominant, but the Samsung store is reasonably popular among Samsung users (as they have regular deals on games and various other apps + some exclusives like Good Lock and other Samsung-specific apps), and of course, the OEM stores are also quite popular in Asian markets.
Not OP, and, correct me if I'm misremembering, but you did actually used to have to enable developer options to be able to sideload at all, and Android doesn't tell you how to do that.
You seem too certain that it's still simple, but everytime I'm installing a new APK my Xiaomi makes me wait 10 seconds and puts a big, red, scary sign saying how dangerous it is to side load, then finally the ok buttons unlocks and I install my app.
That's a problem with Xiaomi, not Google or Android.
I didn't realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can't even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
Yes you can, and I have several times. You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
But we're not talking about Play Store...
OP is mistaken - you can make purchases in side-loaded apps, only thing is that app can't use the Google Play APIs for that (obviously) - but they're free to use PayPal or stripe or w/e payment method. Google has no way of preventing sideloaded apps from doing that, and it's not like they can ban them either.
Actually, there isn't even any actual "warning" - at least not on my Fold 4 - there was just one dialog to enable installation from unknown sources, with a "Settings" button that takes you directly to the page where you need to tick the box next to your browser, and as soon as you tick the box, you can click on the "Install" button to install it. That's it. None of the dialogs you interact with has any actual warnings.
Epic is, in the law suite they just won.
So the issue is that they don't want to pay commission on in-app purchases after people download their app from the Google Play store?
I believe that is the crux of it. And apparently part of the trial exposed that some big players have special deals such that don't have to pay those in-app purchase commissions, or at least have a smaller commission. And that's what makes it an abuse of their market position.
I read that but they don't expand at all on how they're doing that. I can buy, download and install games from EGS right now on my Android phone...
I can also buy things from Amazon or any other online store from my browser without Google Play.
They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing.
On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google's Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university's online studies.
Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it.
Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety.
Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least
I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure
In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial.
It is almost impossible to get it working without the app.
Ah, well in that case, even better
But that won't necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn't need to change how their apps function because of this.
I really hope you'r wrong on that. Anyways, it's a pleasure to see Google bleeding.
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
The Galaxy store app on my phone says otherwise.
The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone.
Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?
Are those all on the phone by default?
Edit: I didn't ask if some of them are installed by default, I asked if ALL of them are installed by default.
I can't speak for the others, but the Samsung Galaxy Store does come pre-installed. However, Google paid Samsung for the Play Store to be the default action for app installs. So you get both stores and can pick which one you want.
That's just two options from two big players who cooperate, and only on some devices.
The Samsung galaxy store comes pre-installed on Samsung phones, I haven't heard of it being pre-installed on non-samsung phones.
They are on their perspective devices. ie: Galaxy Store on Samsung, Mi store on Xiaomi, etc.
But they're only default on their respective devices right?
As a reminder, this is the comment you replied to:
As a reminder that was in fact not the comment I replied to.
Yes, depending on where you buy them from. My Samsung came with Galaxy store by default.
Amazon store and Galaxy store are absolutely installed by default on many devices.
So what you're saying is that two of them are installed by default on some phones, but not all of them? Because the comment they replied to was talking about app stores being installed by default, so I'm asking if all those app stores are all installed by default. Because it seems like only some of them sometimes get installed by default on some phones.
I don't know what's on every phone. But I can confirm those 2 are defaults on some devices through personal experience.
And there are also devices without the Play store by default. Amazon products are probably the best example, but they're not the only ones.
Don't get me wrong - Google does some terrible shit. But they're better than pretty much every other major software company on this issue. All the major game consoles and Apple require the use of their stores exclusively. Microsoft requires the Microsoft store to be installed on any modern Windows machine.
Yeah - the Play Store is the de-facto default and by far the most successful on the platform. And yeah - Google likes it that way and encourages it. But so does everyone else. The difference is that Google is the best actor in this area.
Google allows sideloading. They allow other storefronts. They allow other stores to be installed by default by manufacturers. They allow manufacturers to not include the Play Store. And they allow the removal/disabling of the Play Store by users.
Mi app store is, and on Chinese models is the only one.
The jury settled on the relevant geographic market being "worldwide excluding China".
Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means.
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
They're not disallowed on the Play Store. They just choose not to put them there specifically because they don't want to pay Google 30%.
But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing 3rd party app stores. Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers, since no one has vetted whether it is malicious (not that the app stores are immune from malicious apps) so I don't see that as an issue. I would see mandating the removal of those warnings as an issue.
The Play Store doesn't allow other app stores.
"4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play." - Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement
I think "Computers" go back way farther than you're imagining. There was a time when you didn't even install software on computers. You just put in a disk and ran what was on it. We don't even need to go back to when "Computer" was an actual job title. Something that humans (mostly women) did.
...huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
To make it easy to access other app stores of course. You can use one web browser to download another can't you.
Maybe too simply, because I really don't. Windows didn't give any warnings about installing any programs until Windows 10 I think. And even then it's only the truly esoteric and unknown to Microsoft.
Didn't Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Edit: for future reference, Verge answers this very question here https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly
EDIT: Added source from where I read it.
From some other comment I read,it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google's stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:
Source
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can't find it anymore.
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn't seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can't sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.
Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.
I've heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?
I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.
That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae
Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.
Lawyers are bad, but I'm starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the 'wrong' judge assigned to your case and you're done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.
Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?
Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
Exactly
True, but that's more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn't have any relation. As far as epic goes, they're only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it's allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)
Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it when they are so much more restrictive.
Can this ruling be used in the future against Apple?
From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren't caught.
The difference is that Apple is so vertically integrated, they can say that the existence of Android as an option negates any monopoly they might have on apps. Yes it's stupid.
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
That's literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge's interpretation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
This was a jury trial.
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don't agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it's all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US--nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html
It's just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I'm glad this trial struck down Google's app store monopoly, but all phone OS's should be forbidden from doing it.
Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.
The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?
True, thread is full of both types
Yeah and honestly Im fine with courts opening up the platforms more to make at ths point, but the issue is that apple got the win. People cite incentives and back doors dealings on googles end, but apple doesnt need to they just control everything by default no questions asked.
No it doesn't, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn't in front of a jury, it doesn't give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work's security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify's in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic's approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
Increased competition is ALWAYS better for the customer.
You're forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
I agree on the concerns, but it's a virtually universal truth, so long as they're actually forced to treat other app stores fairly. We might end up with a true third party stepping in to claim the throne, at least until the mega-corps reverse all the optimization they've created for their own benefits (even things like searches for apps are not fully intended to benefit the user right now, things most people don't really realize).
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there's a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Amazon has/had an app store, it was terrible. Though I welcome competitors to step up after this.
Amazon still has its own app store open - mostly because it's the one Microsoft used as the base for their Android compatibility layer. I expect this ruling to give Amazon a breath of fresh air as "the alternative app store".
Droidify with adb or Shizuku can already do that. But it needs Android 12+. Then it can do unattended updates.
Problem is, ADB requires enabling developer mode, and guess what - my company also blocks access to devices with developer mode on! (Also, the fact that Shizuku doesn't work correctly over mobile because it requires stable Wi-Fi to fake a wireless debug connection doesn't help matters.)
Shizuku only requires WiFi once per boot. But it also needs ADB, so it sadly won't work for your company phone.
I think the Session Installer mode allows updates without a dialog for apps already installed by Droidify without dev mode or adb.
So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn't even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.
Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.
problem here was that Google was doing deals to undermine those things
Apple has no such “deals” because apple owns the entire stack.
Welcome to law, Apple is less monopolistic than Google legally simply because Apple built a better monopoly, by denying competition in the first place.
Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.
Not just the degoogled open source Android disros either. Amazon has a commercial fork of Android with its own app store. There was Oppo's AOSP derived ColorOS which was not based on Google's stock Android. I don't think Google should control the core apps as tightly as they do on stock Android but on the other hand those apps sort of define stock android and the default user experience in the marketplace. Epic could roll their own fork if they wanted and substitute apps.
On the subject of Oppo, I think Tencent went after them and other Chinese manufacturers as well to get into their platforms. Tencent are the guys who push their own app store and one app to rule them that Musk has wet dreams about. I sometimes wonder if they are using Epic to wedge open US based app stores for a future WeChat/MyApp like approach. Not that the US government would allow that.
Valve created their own console and helped fund Wine development, presumably as a strategic move to counter Microsoft's platform control. I might be missing something but I don't see similar effort or innovation from Epic.
I believe Microsoft and Nvidia did deals with hardware manufacturers for years that helped exclude competition and those sorts of deals probably pose more difficulty in court. Google might have fallen into a trap and done something similar. Being vertically integrated Apple doesn't have to do deals with other manufacturers but presumably they have some deals with developers. Obviously Sony, Nintendo have exclusives, agreements with developers and tight control of their platforms as well that go far beyond anything I can see with Google so I do find it a bit confusing.
This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.
So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.
Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??
The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.
looks at epic "striking deals" to have games on their storefront
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
True. Tencent sucks
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.
Apple: this is our system and we've always been upfront about it. We're dictators of our ecosystem. You can't compel us to open up. Yes there's less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we've always made that clear to everybody. Forcing us to open up our system is like forcing Nintendo to allow Microsoft games on the Switch, bypassing paying Nintendo anything.
The courts say fair enough, that's correct.
Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don't. We're using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they're big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice than to comply.
The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your dominant market position.
You're looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That's not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.
The thing here is that you don't have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don't even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I'm sure Huawei isn't using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while "designed to keep apps down", is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn't offered that deal they're still free to make deals with other app stores.
Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you're unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple's billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.
I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I'm not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they've specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn't and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?
Google made back room deals with other development firms to help suppress the use of other app stores.
That's the issue here. The collusion aspect.
It's very different than Apple.
* Allegedly.
What exactly is evidence that Google has suppressed other stores, and in what manner ? If you consider say, Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo etc - all have their own stores in parallel to the Play Store. And on all/other phones, you're free sideload any third-party app store.
Taking my Samsung phone as an example, I don't see the Play Store being promoted any more prominently than the Galaxy Store, nor do I see any blockers for using the Galaxy Store. I believe this is the same for other OEMs as well who bundle their own stores.
So tell me, where exactly is the suppression here?
While I agree, it seems like antitrust lawsuits gain a lot more ground if the defendant was paying people to switch from competitors which is what got Google here.
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.
i hope this one also smashes Apple's business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
I'm not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that...
It's not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.
Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That's why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.
While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it's worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.
The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively "smart". Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier's store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.
Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.
Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon's tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.
That said I do think it's a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,
Yup. I was part of Verizon's app development program and it was a fucking joke. Even if the dev tools and build chain wasn't a complete mess, and even if the dev license wasn't expensive, and even if it wasn't almost impossible to even get test hardware... Even if you managed to build something more useful than snake, you'd still have to wait months and months and months for Verizon to sign your apps and then months more before they'd be available on any handset. I'm legitimately not sure it was even possible for a small dev to get anything approved.
Open app stores were and still are amazing. I get that people want even more freedom, but coming from the trauma of feature phone development, I find it hard to get upset about this, especially considering Android makes it dead simple to sideload.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don't think so
Sure smells like it.
Nobody was asking for a history lesson of the past that doesn't draw any real conclusion to the current situation, at the end of the comment.
Hmm
Middle-C?
Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.
Well thats just mean for no particular reason.
I thought it was a good read and reminded me of the garbage I did at one time live through involving non-iphones
Sorry people are being mean on the internet, they may not be aware they dont have to consume all information that is posted in front of them.
Your comment was a nonsensical history lesson, and didn't serve the current conversation of the topic being discussed.
A little more tact could bring your comments a long way, my friend.
Nah, call them as you see them. No need to F around when it comes to people polluting the Internet.
Agree. Smells like a ChatGPT flavored comment.
I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?
Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)
Sorry if it's a stupid question.
It's something else. Here it's US antitrust monopoly.
Google made deals with games and special contracts with other apps in order to kill competition.
I run e/OS, I don't have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.
Epic won this case against google...
Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.
I'm not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that's BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.
Seriously this is crazy. Apple somehow winning is way worse as there is simply no way to install third party apps on IOS. Android makes the risks clear but it's still at least possible if you click install anyway.
In terms of being a monopoly, in the US ios has more market share anyway. Google's lawyers must have really made some big mistake.
Both lawsuits are going into round 2, afaik.
So now Google will be forced to... allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren't suing for damages I don't really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
I imagine Epic doesn't really care about that so much as not giving Google 30% of in-game purchases in Fortnite.
But they wouldn't have to use Google's IAP service if they distributed Fortnite as a self-updating apk on their website.
Maybe, but that's not where the vast majority of people look for apks and part of the lawsuit where Epic says they have a monopoly.
And ask normal people to give their browser app-install permissions?
Those sound very scary, not a very practical way to get a lot of users
Google isn't being forced to do anything. The judge specifically stated they're not doing injunctions or anything. If Epic has another problem, "you can come back."
Now, that's still a ruling, and a ruling helps dissuade Google from doing certain things, but there's not likely to be anything "forced" here.
Currently, it's.more that Google isn't being forced to do anything yet. The judge has said a few things he won't do, but the final judgement on what Google has to do are "up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be."
As reported by The Verge,
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
Huh? They could just do a Fortnite.apk
No the point. Most users won't install anything not on the app store.
Yea, but how is that a monopoly? There is even a fullon android AppStore from Amazon
A monopoly is about market share and access to a market, "there is also ..." doesn't cut it in that discussion.
The real issue here is that Apple is still allowed to do it.
Apple's app store may be a problem, but saying "someone else is also doing something bad" doesn't mean what Google is doing isn't bad & illegal.
A lot of people use fdroid
"a lot" means less than 0.01% of android users.
And stuff like fortnite would never make it to fdroid as well. People seem to jump through so many hoops to not admit the obvious monopoly in play.
Fdroid is for open source apps. Fortnite is anything but.
That was my point? Make it as in make its way to fdroid due to their restrictions.
Ah. My bad. I misread it.
Ah np
I don't think Epic ask that Fortnite is on any store but their own. They want their fully capable launcher on the dominant store.
Ik I was referring to previous comment mate. They were suggesting there are alternatives like fdroid.
Ah yes, year of linux vibes.
I don't like the notion that something having majority market share makes it a monopoly. The definition of monopoly, at least, as understood by me implies control of supply, not just having a higher demand.
They do infact. The exact filename is
FortniteInstaller-5.3.0.apk, so you're not too off the mark. :)I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.
Fdroid better stay as FOSS and privacy focused. I don't want to see Spotify or some subscription brand bullshit up there.
FOSS does not mean "privacy focused". It means the software is free (as in freedom) and the source code is open and available for modification and redistribution and there are already several subscription-based services on there that I am happy to support.
I'm aware of what foss means, it's why I out an "and" after it given fdroid has a separate focus on privacy.
Subscribe to what you like I'd would prefer if fdroid remained as a pillar of security and openness and didn't welcome in a load corpo cunts.
Can I introduce you to F-Droid+? It’s only $9.99 for the first 3 months.
IIRC, no one stops anyone from making their own repository that people can add to their F-Droid client. But I agree that the native F-Droid repo should stay (more or less) as it is.
Artificial media scarcity subscription models are much harder to implement with licenses like AGPL, but personal data crawlers still pose tremendous risks, especially in the future of technology.
I don't believe the F-Droid will ever be implementing any kind of payment processing through the app store.
How many game launchers are there on PC. There will be 100x more on mobile.
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn't Google's app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple's system which won.
I'm willing to bet that the judge and/or jury isn't well versed in either business or technology and made a ruling based on ignorance and confusion.
This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic
Games Launcherfree game downloader for games I forget I own. I'm very unlikely to start using Epic's services over Google's.I'd have taken the money and run
I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.
Ah ok that's def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.
Hadn't considered it.
That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.
Sometimes it's okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it's usually worth the try.
This whole thing stinks. It’s the kind of lawsuit where you wish both parties could lose. The whole walled garden concept sucks, but this doesn’t exactly benefit consumers. Nobody wants a dozen different app stores where we need to set up accounts and payment info - not consumers and not small to medium size developers.
If Epic gets what they’re asking for it sure as hell won’t be what they want. Google still controls the OS so they can just make some shitty third party app store API with requirements just as onerous as IAP that puts everyone else at a disadvantage. If I’m Google, my new motto is “Android’s not done until Fortnite won’t run”.
I’m confused how this is a win for consumers, it just seems like two companies arguing over who gets to rake in more money.
That's how I feel about it too . Can someone explain why I should care ?
They accidentally make rules that work for little guys also.
Maybe Epic can finally build their new HQ now
or invest in Software that works on Linux
They invested in Godot, Lutris, and SDL.
They tore down most of the mall. It'd be nice for them to do something on the abandoned lot of rubble.
So far all they've put up are solar powered security cameras.
Then fire a few employees.
Cunting cunting cunts.
Those monny cunning fun kings runts
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.
Mind you, we don’t know what Epic has actually won quite yet — that’s up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android, and we don’t yet know how or even whether the judge might grant those wishes.
Both parties will meet with Judge Donato in the second week of January to discuss potential remedies.
Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic’s additional request for an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution,” as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.
We’ll replace it with the final signed form once we have access to a digital copy.
The original article contains 492 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
9
'It's a win for everyone" except if Google (and Apple) were to start playing "fair": no more restriction on apps, but they charge full price for the service of hosting and providing a searchable store to something million users. That way, only big business that can pay for that kind of service will be able to use each platform's "main" store, and every (big business owner) will be happy.
There's no free meal in there. Not for the majority of users, at least.
Fuck both companies but fuck Epic more.
I have no issue with Epic.
That terms of service are reasonable and they don't charge ridiculous rates for commercially using their products.
Their biggest crime is their launcher is annoying, that's about it
You don't need to use their launcher, there are other alternatives like Legendary, which can be used with Playnite.
Poor gamers having to deal with competitors to steam.
Competition is good. Poaching games isn’t. And how exactly is it competition if I have to use both to play my games?
If Epic really wanted to compete they’d compete in features, like GoG does.
Edit: Also if the Epic hate were really just about gamers hating competition to Steam, then GoG would be getting hate too.
The launcher is annoying, but not enough for me to really care.
It's basically a different icon and you can install games in such a way that they just click on the icon on the desktop and you don't need to worry about the launcher at all.
But as far as their products go they're fine, they offer good quality products for reasonable prices, they don't seem to take an unrealistic cut of proceeds for games on the platform. They certainly have never attempted to pull anything like Unity has done.
There's plenty not to like about their working conditions. Just like any other AAA developer.
I mean maybe but that's not really what I'm talking about
What's with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?
It's a shitty company who happen to be in the right side of one lawsuit at the moment
It was a genuine question not rhetorical. Why do they suck?
Most articles are trash, but try this
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/
Lol scrolling the front page of that is just like a bunch of whataboutism and hypothetical stretches about how things might be and people hating on fortnite for being fortnite. I'm open to real reasons but I'm not reading more than a dozen fluff nonsense opinions to get to them.
...for tgeir own wallet.
Don't kid yourself, that they are doing it from the kindness of their heart...
Google used to allow third party payments. It turned out to be expensive.
This is like forcing Walmart to let companies take up space in their stores rent free and process their own payments. When it turns out a bunch of those little stores are stealing personal information and credit card info and money, those customers go to the Walmart service desk and when Walmart employees shrug and say, "I don't know what the fuck those guys are doing. You see, we give you the big store, but once you step into that smaller store hey are you falling asleep?" it's national news and it's Walmart's fault and they're called to testify in front of congress to get yelled at for not protecting customers. This is a weird precedent.
I don't agree with Google's decision to force payments through Google. Since congress and courts and media expect Google to police the safety of all apps downloaded from the Play Store, I can't think of a better solution that also respects privacy, isn't, "We'll monitor everything every app does, but pinky swear it's just so we can make sure they're being nice to you."