4 ms·

If they are trying to set a precedent in the courts, it makes sense to go after the most winnable case, and then try to use that ruling to win others. So it wou

If they are trying to set a precedent in the courts, it makes sense to go after the most winnable case, and then try to use that ruling to win others. So it would not be Android, where alternative app stores and side loading are permitted, and not the consoles, where the manufacturers will argue they are not providing a general-purpose device. iPhone and even more so iPads are the ideal targets for lawsuits that aim to set precedents.

microtherion 6y ago
But didn't Epic also pull a similar move on the Google Play store simultaneously?
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Yes. I guess they may be trying to show that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app market. If they win the Apple case, I am sure they will sue Google next, and that would be a much easier lawsuit to win.
  - ac29 6y ago
    They already did sue Google: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
MayeulC 6y ago
Side note: alternative stores are a pain: installing the F-droid privileged extension for automatic updates requires root access, for instance. Why couldn't that be a setting, like device administrators? I feel Google is doing the bare minimum to avoid antitrust rulings, which they probably do.
- g_p 6y ago
  Google views sideloading as their inconvenient but necessary antitrust escape valve, in my view. They don't want people using it, they want it as something to point at and say "not guilty". Interesting however is the wording of an old version of the Android Market (old name before Play Store came about) developer agreement - the title of 4.5 is labelled "Non-Competition". I think that title (which has unsurprisingly disappeared from more recent versions) says it all. Sideloading was Google's attempt to avoid an antitrust battle in the early days of Android, as they could say "we are new, anyone can make a store". The trouble is the licensing agreements with OEMs contain all sorts of restrictions, some of which have probably become public over time. Perhaps more will emerge through the epic games lawsuit, as it seems they're going after the restrictions on OEMs. There's many of those they can request through disclosure if they don't have them already! Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribution-agreement/archive.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.goog...
scarface74 6y ago
Yet he sued Google....

microtherion 6y ago

But didn't Epic also pull a similar move on the Google Play store simultaneously?

smnrchrds 6y ago
Yes. I guess they may be trying to show that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app market. If they win the Apple case, I am sure they will sue Google next, and that would be a much easier lawsuit to win.
- ac29 6y ago
  They already did sue Google: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...

MayeulC 6y ago

Side note: alternative stores are a pain: installing the F-droid privileged extension for automatic updates requires root access, for instance. Why couldn't that be a setting, like device administrators? I feel Google is doing the bare minimum to avoid antitrust rulings, which they probably do.

g_p 6y ago
Google views sideloading as their inconvenient but necessary antitrust escape valve, in my view. They don't want people using it, they want it as something to point at and say "not guilty". Interesting however is the wording of an old version of the Android Market (old name before Play Store came about) developer agreement - the title of 4.5 is labelled "Non-Competition". I think that title (which has unsurprisingly disappeared from more recent versions) says it all. Sideloading was Google's attempt to avoid an antitrust battle in the early days of Android, as they could say "we are new, anyone can make a store". The trouble is the licensing agreements with OEMs contain all sorts of restrictions, some of which have probably become public over time. Perhaps more will emerge through the epic games lawsuit, as it seems they're going after the restrictions on OEMs. There's many of those they can request through disclosure if they don't have them already! Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribution-agreement/archive.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.goog...

scarface74 6y ago

Yet he sued Google....