Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
theverge.com
Google will appeal the decision: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23996902/google-will-appeal-the-epic-v-google-verdict
Google will appeal the decision: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23996902/google-will-appeal-the-epic-v-google-verdict
The only thing we've learned today is that Apple's lawyers are far better than Google's...
Yeah... How the fuck is Google action here "monopolistic" and Apple literally refusing to let anyone in at all somehow isn't? What a joke.
Because iOS is Apple's OS on Apple's hardware. The court ruled they could do what they want. Android is not Google's OS, even if it's mostly theirs, and they certainly have no control over the hardware apart from Pixels.
Competition is possible on Android in a way it isn't on iOS. Google was being anti-competitive in a space where others can compete, Apple was just being a bully in their own backyard.
That's a really bad way to look at it if that's really what it boils down to.
They are unfortunately correct. Its the same sort of argument that got Microsoft. If they don't allow competition from the start its fine if they do and work to undermine that competition then its by definition anti competitive and monopolistic. Crazy I know.
But what exactly did they do though? Several OEMs have their own app stores (Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo etc) and they're not restricted in any way, nor is the Play Store promoted over their native app stores on those devices. Finally, you're free to download any app store (F-Droid, Aurora, Apptoide) etc on pretty much every Android phone. So what exactly is anti-competitive here?
Google actually forces it's installation if you want to use the android trademark. It'd probably be pretty hard to market "MotorolaOS"
I don't see the issue here. Is it really that bad to bundle your own apps in your own OS? Also, even though they bundle the store, it's not like they're forcing you to use it, nor is it prominently promoted over any other native stores.
I think the issue could be that it's forcing the companies to include it, even if the company can include alternatives as well or when user can just ignore it. Not a lawyer, but back when Apple was in the courts I heard social media lawyers saying that Google actually had a worse prospect because when you force your competitors (other non-google phone makers that use Android forks) to bundle G Play/Services it can be considered "tying". Then if a company just uses the GPL code without following the contractual rules like that they can't advertise Android and it it could hurt their market share.
Just spitballing, but maybe the Google play services that lots of apps require to run? So even if you have a third party store you likely still need those services that also lump in a bunch of other stuff for Google's benefit.
You don't need to use the Google Play Services at all. Developers only use it because it's convenient, but you're not forced to use it. A lot of users here on Lemmy for example (myself included) use alt stores like F-Droid, Droid-ify etc without any issues.
Without FCM, push notifications become much harder due to the battery saving optimizations each device manufacturer uses. So not a need per se, but it makes your life MUCH harder
There are alternatives. Pushy is pretty easy to use, and it's not that hard to allow it to run in the background. See: https://support.pushy.me/hc/en-us/articles/360043423332-How-can-I-send-notifications-to-Android-devices-in-Doze-power-saving-mode-
Of course, an OEM may do aggressive app killing where the above may not work (Huawei is notorious for this), but that is an OEM-specific issue that applies to all apps in general, so as a developer it's up to you whether you want to test against, or even support such OEMs.
That's so stupid.
It's so frustrating seeing this question constantly in all these threads when this has been explained.
iOS is locked down. It is not an open, competitive market. That in itself is not against the law, and it won't be considered an anti-trust issue until the market share grows.
Android is not locked down, which means it's a competitive marketplace.
Google was not doing the same thing as Apple. Google was using shady deals to make Android less competitive. iOS was never competitive to begin with.
Apple got off on a technicality, basically.
What Apple does is shitty and deserves regulating, but apparently we have a ways to go before we reach the EU's level of understanding on this.
I've read your comment as well as a bunch of articles and I still don't understand it. From the article: "[Epic] 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". My Samsung phones comes with two completely different app stores out of the box, the Google Play one and the Samsung Galaxy one. The latter offers the Epic Games Store. I really cannot wrap my head around why in this specific case Google is being anti competitive.
To get access to the Play Store, OEMs have to bundle a bunch of additional apps and services. That I get for being anti competitive but that's not what Epic's case was about. They didn't sue about their web search being disadvantaged by the Google Search bar mandate. They didn't sue because they made a web browser nobody is using because of the Chrome mandate. They sued and apparently argued successfully that they cannot get their store onto Android phones and yet, as stated, my phone already comes with two app stores and EGS is listed in the second one.
It's so frustrating seeing so many people repost this shit thinking that repeating the same garbage is helpful.
No one gives a fuck about the "legal" definition of why this is "allowed". Looking at this with basic common sense, what Apple is getting away with is much worse than what Google is getting pegged for.
People complaining don't care that there's a stupid loophole in the legal definitions as to why Apple is allowed to do this. If the laws and definitions make that OK, and Google's actions are held to be more "anti competitive" then the laws and definitions need to change.
That's what people are complaining about. Not that "oh what's the legal loophole that allows this". No one cares about the legal shit that allows this. That's why they keep complaining "even after this has been answered".
Look, I despise Google as much as anyone these days, and I'm glad they're taking a beating this time around, but at the same time, it's also kind of bullshit. And it's not even because you can sideload apps, or have alternate appstores on Android, but because we have yet to see the same standards being applied to Apple.
I don't understand, this is bullshit because Apple won their case? Do you mean the Apple case was bullshit?
Right. Apple is even more restricted but somehow won their case. Makes it all seem like bullshit.
The judge in their case decided that the relevant market was mobile gaming, not app stores or in-app payment processing, and since technically Apple didn't have a monopoly there, the whole monopoly claim by Epic was deemed invalid by that judge. Courts can be stupidly black & white sometimes but that's how it is and a whole case can be tossed out based on a technicality. Google v Epic however was a jury trial and Epic obviously took lessons from their loss against Apple.
There's a reason you have organizations like the NLRB, meant to be the "first step" before a labor case goes to a more general trial -- it lets a bunch of people who are actual subject matter experts (in the NLRB's case, labor law experts) be the first pass at reviewing the legal claims before a general court that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about gets involved. It lets you set the tone for the whole ensuing trial process, grounded in understanding and truth.
The average judge doesn't know jack shit about ANYTHING other than the technicalities of the law. Most of them haven't done a real day of work in their life. But being a judge gives you the confidence you need to think your understanding of the technicalities of the law can be applied to just about anything, even something you find utterly baffling outside of the trial.
We really lack a qualified commission or board to be the first pass for these big tech disputes. The FTC is asleep at the wheel. And the result is that our ongoing legal frameworks around these issues continue to be arbitrary, unpredictable court rulings based on random judges' limited understandings and gut instincts. It's a very bad situation.
In a similar vein, that's why the fascists on the Supreme Court are trying so hard to undermine and delete Chevron deference. Because when you want to use the courts to just enforce your preferences and write your own laws, having to appeal to subject matter experts just gets in the way.
On Android you can install unapproved apps and even entire app stores. The barrier to having people install your app is a couple of taps (approximately as difficult as it'd be on Windows when you've got to approve UAC a time or two).
So, it is kind of ridiculous in comparison that they lost but Apple with an entire walled of ecosystem that you can't bypass without finding a zero day exploit won their case.
With that said, I know a lot of people who only buy Apple BECAUSE of that walled off ecosystem and conversely I know people that primarily buy Android for their relatively open system, so I'm in the minority where I think neither Google nor Apple should have to change in this particular regard. Both companies suck, but charging the same price they always have for their app store isn't the issue I'd fight them over.
Not entirely true. Google has a history of making it as difficult as possible for other app stores to run without outright locking them out as possible.
Citation needed. I just tried installing the Epic store on my Samsung and it was literally a couple of taps, not even an actual warning - just a friendly dialog box asking me to allow my browser to install apps and that's it.
Used to be much, much worse. They used to force you to go find a setting called something like 'allow apps from outside the Play Store' and tick it, show you warning screens, then when you tried to install an app from it, it would take you out of the store to say 'do you want to install this from an untrusted location?'
Edit: and that's before we get onto the subject of Play Protect, which is used to wipe applications from phones that are contrary to Google's interests but not actual malware.
Google is a monopoly. Apple in many ways, is also a monopoly. They are lamenting that the latter was not acknowledged.
Definitely a case of "good, now go do apple again". The mobile marketplaces being locked down and tied to services is bullcrap. If I want a run of the mill open source android OS and to be able to use Gmail (or drive, or some other Google product ) I should not have to allow Google full access to the knowledge of every app I run and the screen time and my location information... Etc, etc.
But I do think the apple win on a technicality will be revisited at some point.
And to be clear, I freaking do not like Epic. But this fight they're on the side I agree with. Open up the mobile platforms.
Web search, sure. Online video, sure. Mobile operating systems in the US specifically? Uhh, no.
Its a 70:30 split between Android and Apple. So you have a choice between Apple's walled garden and Google's... ecosystem. Best case scenario its a duopoly.
Sure but OEMs of Android phones can still ship app stores competing with Google Play. That what Samsung (the biggest Android vendor) does with Galaxy Store.
Not disagreeing, but sidelosding is obvious for people like us who have tinkered with smartphones, especially back when most devices used to be 'open' and tons of 3rd party roms were around. It's obvious for us who know about adb commands and developer settings. It's not so obvious when you're a new customer who got their 1st galaxy phone - you'd have no idea there's something else other than Google play for apps.
How the heck does Google lose this but apple win it? Not that funny. Weird news.
apple has a deeper lobbyist checkbook
Mishaal Rahman talked a bit about this: https://androiddev.social/@MishaalRahman/111564753075960964
Shouldn't this set a precedent for apple as well?
Thing is, Apple is only 30% of the market. Google is the other 70%
Not in the US. The estimates I've seen are closer to 50-50 which is really saying something about how effective Apple has been.
Apple's reasoning is that they also sell their own machines... still bs if you ask me.
I think a lot of people here are missing the point that in a court legal != pro-consumer. The US has monopoly laws that Apple (annoyingly) follows but Google does not.
Apple follows the monopoly laws but Google doesn't? Which one allows you to install alternative app stores again?
Because Apple does not break monopoly law. Which isn't about installing app stores, would be weird if that's in the law anyways given the age.
Apple sells a device they make, with firmware they create. That firmware allows plugins from a catalogue they curate because it's all their ecosystem, top to bottom.
Google otoh creates an OS. More like MS or Canonical or so.
It's a clever-evil (clevil?) gambit, right? Become the largest corporation on the planet, but somehow skirt being a monopoly technically. If Apple's iPhone hardware team colludes with Apple's App Store team, it's just collaboration. If they did so with a third party, it'd be collusion.
Meanwhile:
Third party Bluetooth hardware (like smartwatches) has to use an inferior API than Apple's private one for their Bluetooth accessories
Third party browsers have to use Apple's rendering engine in degraded performance to Safari and can't use their own
Third party apps are forced to follow Apple's power policy (ex: background apps can't run over 10 minutes) while Apple's apps can do what they want.
Apple can circumvent third party VPNs to always allow their traffic to 17.0.0.0, so there is basically no way to block an Apple device from talking to Apple HQ except for taking it offline.
On Android you can take an OEM device and change most aspects of it to suit your needs. On iOS, nope. Sad thing is though, Google seems to be slowly closed-sourcing Android to be like a broken version of Apple.
In the end, we all lose.
The laws need updating, also the people in governance need updating so they can comprehend these things.
Edit: Formatting
I must be seriously misunderstanding the US legal system. OEMs can ship whatever store they want next to Play Store. I have a Samsung phone in my hand with Galaxy Store coming out of the box proving that point.
Apple makes its own app store for its own OS to be used on its own devices. It doesn't make anyone else bundle its services on third party devices.
It is more that iOS isn't the market leader. If iOS had Android's marketshare, Apple would have lost its case.
That certainly weighs into it, but take a look at the agreements that Google has handset manufacturers agree to. They're quite a lot like 90's Microsoft.
Also the Browser extension store?
Wouldn't they just argue you can use developer mode to install the extension? Or is that not available on mobile?
On mobile there are no extensions at all.
Only true for sub-par browsers.
This was about Chromium
Chromium poorly is the most secure Browser. It sucks, and Googles monopoly sucks, but the main problem really is the webstore. Even manifest V3 could allow extensions with daily blocklist updates. But not on that store.
Chromium is by far more secure on both Android and Linux, which is a shame.
So now what?