5 ms·

If anyone else thought this article is pretty scant on context, here's the backstory behind the lawsuit, Google was using Play Protect to nag users to uninstall

• qball 8y ago
  Good. Maybe Microsoft should be taking note since it was doing the same thing earlier: (https://www.howtogeek.com/243581/windows-10-may-delete-your-programs-without-asking/ https://www.howtogeek.com/243581/windows-10-may-delete-your-...)
  • joelhaasnoot 8y ago
    But what about Apple? iOS is designed such that a third party app store is impossible. Why should Google have to allow a third party app store and Apple be able to "walk free" in their walled garden.
    • Fnoord 8y ago
      Aside from the other (excellent) comments already made, Apple neither has the same market share as Android nor does it have a (near) monopoly in search or advertising.
      • sysstemlord 8y ago
        This excuse is always mentioned whenever such comparison appears. But it doesn't convince me. Having a smaller market share doesn't mean you can get away with breaking the law.
        • Fnoord 8y ago
          It isn't a get out of jail for free card. Laws still apply for any company however for a (convicted) monopolist different laws apply than for a random (successful) company. Microsoft and Google are convicted monopolists.
        • raverbashing 8y ago
          Except the law does apply differently if you have the majority of the market share.
      • robocat 8y ago
        There are countries where Apple has a dominant market share (e.g. Japan). You might argue Google is dominant in advertising worldwide, but Facebook is a contender in many countries (e.g. in the Philippines, Facebook is "the internet" as an approximation). If you want to pick and choose subsectors, I am sure we could pick markets where mobile is one of the words and the second word is also something Apple absolutely dominates. The world is a big place to make sweeping generalisations about. Edit: parent article is about Portugal, not the world. A friend said to me: working in antitrust, on either side, a key is defining the market.
      • arendtio 8y ago
        Well, while the market share is an important side note, the point is that they are a platform provider too. Microsoft had the problem a few years ago with bundling their Internet Explorer on Windows (and making it hard for the competition to have a chance). For Apple, the situation is a bit easier, as they don't allow any third party app stores at all, so any competition would probably encourage their users to break Apples 'Terms of Use', which in turn would make a lawsuit even more difficult. In my opinion, platform providers should be obliged to open their platform for all kinds of third-party services & tools but I am sure, Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc. will find other ways to discriminate others on their platform and push their services.
        • candiodari 8y ago
          Exactly, the law should be modified to force platform providers to guarantee their users: 1) the ability to install their own apps, no restrictions (IF approved by owner) 2) the ability to get apps from wherever they want I would be much happier.
      • joelhaasnoot 8y ago
        Note that Apple still has a 35% market share where I live and I'm sure that's mostly factoring in new sales. Apples's devices have big refurbished appeal. The market share is not insignificant.
    • codycraven 8y ago
      Apple produces all of its own devices and it's impossible to install another app store on the phone without jailbreaking (since app's don't have permissions to install other apps). Now if someone created an app store on MacOS (Homebrew for example) and Apple started prompting users to uninstall Homebrew I'd reason they'd be subject to losing a lawsuit.
      • joelhaasnoot 8y ago
        > Apple produces all of its own devices and it's impossible to install another app store on the phone without jailbreaking Not completely true: corporate users can get special distribution licenses to be able to distribute to their employees. https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
        • chongli 8y ago
          A corporate internal distribution license is really stretching the definition of "another app store." I think most people on the sidewalk would only call something an app store if it's open to the public.
          • joelhaasnoot 8y ago
            The only thing stopping you from installing this on everyone's phone however is the Apple secret police and the license agreement you sign with them. Technically it's possible with the right certificate signed by Apple.
      • chumali 8y ago
        AFAIK you can still access third party app repositories such as AppValley or TweakBox on iOS without jailbreaking (you have to install/trust their configuration profiles however).
      • candiodari 8y ago
        Apple could be forced to allow another app store, which is essentially what the EU is demanding here.
    • mike22223333 8y ago
      Because when Google made Android it was allowed. Device manufacturers supported Android and PlayStore and gave up some control to Google because of the deal. Now Google is trying to back off from the deal after it has a huge network affect because of the exclusive apps, Play Services and Play Store. Android would not have been so big if it were not an open platform. There were many other closed source OS's available ie. Windows Phone. If Google backs off, it would be a bait and switch, and this tactic should be illegal. Imagine if Samsung had its own OS, Apple with its own, Nokia (now with Android) and others with their own. We would not have much choice if Android were not open between phones because many of our apps would not be compatible. iOS from the beginning was not open. It was known, so everyone knew. Android is expected to remain open because it was initially open. TL;DR: Android would have been dead it were not an open platform. No device manufacturer should have give up control to Google, which Samsung regrets to date.
      • kakarot 8y ago
        What "control" has Samsung given Google that they regret?
        • close04 8y ago
          They gave up using any Android forks and did not push Tizen.
          • mike22223333 8y ago
            And allowing the Google Play Services and Play Store to grow so big that their own store (in case relations go wrong with Google, they have a backup) can not compete.
            • candiodari 8y ago
              They also completely underfunded the development of both Tizen and, especially, their app store. They offshored development off it to Eastern Europe as well, and even there it was less than 100 people, and not the best ones in the market (they weren't paying premium wages for Eastern Europe). So if this is Samsung "pushing", they're truly a very sucky company. This is lack of will on Samsung's part, not some magical market advantage on Google's part.
    • talltimtom 8y ago
      Try to read that back again. You are asking why if Apple is allowed to do this on their product, why is google not allowed to do this on everyone else’s product. If google wants to make a phone that’s locked to an operating system with only their store they can do that, no issue. But that’s not what they are doing. They are distributing their operating system across the market and abusing that to force out any competing stores. That’s not ok. If Ford decides to sell all their cars with Michelin tires that’s not an issue, however if Michelin decides that every company who uses their tires must also use their new expensive brand of windscreen wipers that’s a problem.
      • yayana 8y ago
        Apple's behavior is Tying, which is worse not better and is traditionally dealt with in anti-trust legislation. (You can't buy a license for any Apple OS for use on other hardware. You can buy a Android OS phone from any participating vendor. The vendor can refuse to pay Google and install any store.)
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • Retric 8y ago
          Some things monopoly’s are prohibited from doing other things everyone is prohibited from doing. Tying is legal for non monopoly’s.
      • candiodari 8y ago
        > If google wants to make a phone that’s locked to an operating system with only their store they can do that, no issue. I don't see Pixel phones being exempted from this judgement, so I don't understand why you're claiming this.
  • codycraven 8y ago
    I think Microsoft is in a different boat here. The applications seem to be removed when there isn't compatiblity with a new breaking release. Should they provide messaging about what was removed and why? Sure, that'd definitely help with transparency for savvy users (but could be very worrisome for non-technical users). It's an entirely different game to remove a competitor's application that's eating market share from your cash cow—regardless of the possibility of it allowing you to install malware—which under the same criteria Google's Play Store should be removed as well since it isn't immune to distributing malware.
    • eiaoa 8y ago
      > I think Microsoft is in a different boat here. The applications seem to be removed when there isn't compatiblity with a new breaking release. Should they provide messaging about what was removed and why? Sure, that'd definitely help with transparency for savvy users (but could be very worrisome for non-technical users). I think it would be more worrisome to have applications disappear silently because Microsoft decided so. They should definitely provide messaging. Every feature that makes computers less of inscrutable black boxes, the better. If you're making a change that a user can see without getting an explicit command from them, tell them about it and explain it!