9 ms·

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimousl

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too. This may wind up being an enormous shake up.

Spivak 3y ago
And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  To be fair, that's literally called a video game console.
  - tantalor 3y ago
    What is?
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      > Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's called the antitrust investigation into Microsoft Windows; or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." Edit: I'm actually OK with this, even legally, because I view devices as being means to an end for an experience, which is also how I think most consumers view devices. When viewed that way, we really have three major "buckets" of devices if you will: "Computers", "Gaming", "Phones". The "Computers" market is a race in most minds between Windows and Mac (and thus Windows gets hit with antitrust investigations). The "Phones" market is once again a 2-cart race between Android and iPhone (and this time, Android gets the antitrust investigations). The "Games" market is a 4-cart race between 3 console manufacturers and the PC, with 2 additional smaller carts called Cloud Gaming and the Smartphone (which, themselves have 3 and 2 carts respectively) - thus, no interest in investigating anyone there. However, if gaming didn't exist on the PC and was strictly Sony v. Nintendo, it would totally be investigated.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        > or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." And they get away with it because Apple isn't competing with anyone within their own ecosystem; it's not a market. Really is a neat little bit of lawyering, iOS and all apps within aren't competing with each other hence the rule about too many apps with similar features, they're competing as a unit with other computing platforms.
      - slimsag 3y ago
        If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?
        StressedDev 3y ago
        They are never going to do this.
        slimsag 3y ago
        Doesn't matter, I ask because the industry will (and is actively) trending towards this. It won't be Microsoft, it'll be whoever replaces Microsoft in the long term. My question remains: what will happen in that case and what do we want to happen?
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exec boasted she got Riot to halt development on its own app store by promising the company $10M in marketing. > Another Google exec suggested that sharing revenue with Samsung would be “better at disincentivizing other app stores from being preloaded.” > Google wanted to offer a 16 percent Google Play revenue share to key Chinese OEMs to “secure Play exclusivity” — and wound up giving them 20 percent. > A secret Google deal let Spotify completely bypass Android’s app store fees Apple made significantly less of these deals - they have their rules that you can either follow or not participate. I do think that some of those rules limit competition and make worse products for consumers.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.
    - jonbell 3y ago
      There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.
      - hackernewds 3y ago
- ravetcofx 3y ago
  And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Apple has global dominance on market profits
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.
- LordKeren 3y ago
  I think it is pretty easy to review google’s deals with phone manufacturers to stop them from shipping third party app stores presintalled and quickly come to the conclusion that Google was using its market position to prevent competition between the Google play store and others on android. Google, as evidenced by their own internal documents put into record in this trial, was not interested in creating a platform where they had any real completion with the Google play store
- jongjong 3y ago
  The message I got is that everything is corrupt. I hope Google execs and shareholders also got that message. Now finally some big guys are getting a sense of the issue with centralization. There can only be one government-ordained winner and it's not the one who plays fair and square who wins. It's usually the biggest political manipulator. Google is in a weak position now due to the perceived risk of AI disrupting its business. When you show any weakness at all, the law starts working against you in the most blatant ways and it becomes self-fulfilling.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that Google lost this lawsuit because the government decided they don’t matter anymore because they don’t have good enough AI on the market?
    - jongjong 3y ago
      No. I'm suggesting that Apple won theirs because they are more important in the eyes of the corrupt government and that's what it takes to win. There can only be one winner. Second place is a loser. Just wait 10 or 20 years. Watch the system concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands and people blame everything under the sun except the design of the system. I think the winner will probably be either Microsoft or Oracle because they are the most corrupt. Seriously, does Microsoft or Oracle do anything useful these days? No, they just extort money from the government via overpriced proprietary software licenses, lock-ins and contracts obtained through corrupt practices. That's what winners do.
      - tavavex 3y ago
        How exactly does this work, in your opinion? Does "The Government" (one entity) somehow decide on something like this and forces a specific judge to rule in a certain way? If something like this was uncovered, it'd be way bigger than this lawsuit. And while you have a bit of a point about Oracle being stagnant... Microsoft? They own and develop tons of things. Microsoft isn't just Windows and Office.
thelastparadise 3y ago
[flagged]
Racing0461 3y ago
> The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?
- plus 3y ago
  The judge cannot override the jury's ruling, so unless Google's appeal succeeds, the ruling stays.
  - brokenodo 3y ago
    The Court technically can if Google asked for JMOL prior the case going to the jury. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    A judgement notwithstanding the verdict allows a judge to throw out a jury verdict.
- LordKeren 3y ago
  Epic didn’t sue for damages. They sued to get the rules changed. The jury did not award Epic any money. The judge will be deciding how Google must remedy the situation
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Yes, as your own comment points out. Juries determine questions of fact. That can't (for the most part, there are of course exceptions) be revised by a judge. The applied penalty is a very different thing, and can be and usually is revised by the judge.
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    Usually what happens is a point of law gets appealed and one of the chances of action gets thrown out and the penalty that was tied to it.
- 3y ago
rkagerer 3y ago
Finally. I'm glad this caught up to them. I used to have a lot of warm fuzzies for Google, but they've become downright despicable in so many respects. The app store has leaned toward unfair for publishers (and users) for years, I hope something good comes of this.
- jmoak3 3y ago
  Like I've been saying. We're not incentivizing the stewardship of open platforms. Apple will die before they open their garden. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 I don't want to be pithy and low-effort here. I'm confused on why Google lost while Apple won.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    As other comments have said, Google's was a jury trial, Apple's not. And, even if neither were jury trials, as another another comment said, the justice system is not a hivemind: the way your case goes can and does depend on the judge/jury passing judgement. That being said, Apple isn't stupid: they probably know as of now, even if they managed to believe it didn't before, that this monopoly on distribution has a shelf life. So I'm interested to see how they expand iOS app distribution to counter the claims of monopolistic behavior in the future, not unlike the way Microsoft supported other browsers financially for years to stop the FTC suing them into the dirt over Internet Explorer. I'm generally an Apple fan, and to be totally honest, if there was another app distribution system on iOS, I doubt I would touch it. I appreciate the baseline level of quality and curation in the App Store and have no desire to leave it. I see the low-effort dreck of the Play store by comparison as undesirable. That being said, I don't grudge anyone for pointing out Apple's position in that space is uncompetitive. It is. I have no interest in alternatives but that doesn't mean alternatives shouldn't exist.
    - jmoak3 3y ago
      Thank you for the explanation. I'm also an Apple fan and would not leave the App Store easily, however I am unhappy that I am forever unable to do so. I think rulings against these companies are warranted, but I want an end game where iPhone is closer to Android's best aspects, not where Android drops them to mimic iPhone's. Google could easily stop being as "anti-competitive" by not releasing another public update of Android again, launching a new "Pixel Play Store" available on Pixel, and putting all of their effort into this platform going forward. The world would be a worse place for this, and Google would likely make more services revenue. I have a feeling developers would abandon the other manufacturer's platforms in a microsecond. If Google's not allowed to have influence over the default search/apps installed on 3rd party android phones made by Samsung/HTC, why would Google even bother with the business? They only ran it to get more mobile search users into Google Search IMO. I'm sure Google deserves to get smacked for the worst of their behavior but Apple walking away (for now) without a scratch is sending a stark message, at least to my eyes. You say Apple's time with this behavior is limited, and I can only hope you're right. Being positive, hopefully down the line, this case can be used as a wedge to peel Apple's grip open.
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  there is no sanction in the US for monopolies if the market chooses that, you just cant do anticompetitive things in the process or while you have one so simply being in the exact same position is not enough, the details of exactly how you navigate it are more important with that in mind, Apple is still vulnerable based on their behavior, but its not a slam dunk by mere nature of being in the same position for example, revenue splits were always high in app stores, they didnt jack them up higher and in fact have come down periodically as if there was competition, and the market still chose to use them. app stores have always had heavy handed selective moderation approaches, it didnt get worse its gotten better in some regards. makes it very hard to prove antitrust just because the market kept subjecting itself to these
  - tomComb 3y ago
    But they are not in the exact same position - Apple has a much tighter grip on their App Store than Google, and they don’t even need to: they make money selling the devices.
    - StressedDev 3y ago
      Apple’s app store policies product users. One thing Apple has done which is very good is regulate iPhone app decelopers.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dgreensp 3y ago
      I'm sure that's how Google feels! "Unfairly competing in the 'Android app distribution market'?? We are Android!!" This is one of those legal situations I really can't wrap my head around, though. The point is the situations are different enough it would have to be a different legal framework for Apple's situation, and a different day in court. I think a ruling like this is good. We need more checks on Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
hedora 3y ago
Google has already appealed this. I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with constitutionality and clearing "legal debt" (decisions outside the scope of the Court as chartered) from previous courts. I would be surprised if they take this one up.
  - hedora 3y ago
    The “legal debt” argument is absurd. They’ve been expanding their charter as much as they’ve been contracting it. The majority is also openly corrupt, and will throw whatever they want out the window the second they are paid to do so. Edit: Also, this idea that they should clear legal debt is a massive expansion of their charter. The system works as follows: - Congress writes laws - If they are vague, the courts set precedents that are irreversible except in the case of dire errors. - If congress doesn’t like a precedent they clarify the law. The current court is violating separation of powers by retroactively going against the actions taken by the last 50-100 years of legislators. For instance, congress had decades to amend the constitution to say the fourth amendment doesn’t imply a right to privacy or women’s reproductive health care (including abortion) as Roe v. Wade established. The current court greatly overstepped their authority when they ruled there is no right to privacy or reproductive health care. This isn’t a minor oversight that congress forgot to consider. This is the justices deciding they have been elected dictators for life.
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      Your point about Roe v Wade is precisely my point. The right to abortion is simply not in the Constitution. If Congress wants to pass that law, they may, and that would be legal according to the Supreme Court. Any honest legal scholar will tell you that Roe v Wade is a ridiculous Supreme Court decision, simply because it is sua sponte law. The current court is not violating separation of power by overturning older laws. Your point about the court only overturning vague laws is completely false. The court exists as a check on Congress and the executive to hold them accountable to the texts which charter them. It is designed this way because overturning laws is far less harmful than upholding them. Government should do less, not more, and that is in our DNA as a country. The Supreme Court is acting as designed.
toss1 3y ago
>>"Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform." —— Wilson White, VP, Government Affairs & Public Policy That's the most he can say? Pretty damn low bar to beat Apple's walled garden at 'openness'. Sheesh With losing on EVERY point, there may not be a lot of room to appeal, as appeals rarely overturn findings of fact. But it will create delay. Maybe we'll ultimately get some relief.
asadotzler 3y ago
Most likely outcome is probably a consent decree like Microsoft's. Google agrees to publicly document all APIs for Android app store capabilities, and to refrain from certain kinds of business deals, and some mechanism of enforcement, perhaps embedded monitors at Goog or an onerous reporting regime. Then, with a level playing field we see if Google's Play Store can compete with other app stores, and whether Google can give Android a great app store management experience to end users.
bee_rider 3y ago
Someone needs to go after Amazon for their monopoly in the Amazon Prime Video distribution market.

Spivak 3y ago

And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
To be fair, that's literally called a video game console.
- tantalor 3y ago
  What is?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's called the antitrust investigation into Microsoft Windows; or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." Edit: I'm actually OK with this, even legally, because I view devices as being means to an end for an experience, which is also how I think most consumers view devices. When viewed that way, we really have three major "buckets" of devices if you will: "Computers", "Gaming", "Phones". The "Computers" market is a race in most minds between Windows and Mac (and thus Windows gets hit with antitrust investigations). The "Phones" market is once again a 2-cart race between Android and iPhone (and this time, Android gets the antitrust investigations). The "Games" market is a 4-cart race between 3 console manufacturers and the PC, with 2 additional smaller carts called Cloud Gaming and the Smartphone (which, themselves have 3 and 2 carts respectively) - thus, no interest in investigating anyone there. However, if gaming didn't exist on the PC and was strictly Sony v. Nintendo, it would totally be investigated.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      > or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." And they get away with it because Apple isn't competing with anyone within their own ecosystem; it's not a market. Really is a neat little bit of lawyering, iOS and all apps within aren't competing with each other hence the rule about too many apps with similar features, they're competing as a unit with other computing platforms.
    - slimsag 3y ago
      If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?
      - StressedDev 3y ago
        They are never going to do this.
        slimsag 3y ago
        Doesn't matter, I ask because the industry will (and is actively) trending towards this. It won't be Microsoft, it'll be whoever replaces Microsoft in the long term. My question remains: what will happen in that case and what do we want to happen?
madeofpalk 3y ago
Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exec boasted she got Riot to halt development on its own app store by promising the company $10M in marketing. > Another Google exec suggested that sharing revenue with Samsung would be “better at disincentivizing other app stores from being preloaded.” > Google wanted to offer a 16 percent Google Play revenue share to key Chinese OEMs to “secure Play exclusivity” — and wound up giving them 20 percent. > A secret Google deal let Spotify completely bypass Android’s app store fees Apple made significantly less of these deals - they have their rules that you can either follow or not participate. I do think that some of those rules limit competition and make worse products for consumers.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.
  - jonbell 3y ago
    There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.
    - hackernewds 3y ago
ravetcofx 3y ago
And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Apple has global dominance on market profits
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.
LordKeren 3y ago
I think it is pretty easy to review google’s deals with phone manufacturers to stop them from shipping third party app stores presintalled and quickly come to the conclusion that Google was using its market position to prevent competition between the Google play store and others on android. Google, as evidenced by their own internal documents put into record in this trial, was not interested in creating a platform where they had any real completion with the Google play store
jongjong 3y ago
The message I got is that everything is corrupt. I hope Google execs and shareholders also got that message. Now finally some big guys are getting a sense of the issue with centralization. There can only be one government-ordained winner and it's not the one who plays fair and square who wins. It's usually the biggest political manipulator. Google is in a weak position now due to the perceived risk of AI disrupting its business. When you show any weakness at all, the law starts working against you in the most blatant ways and it becomes self-fulfilling.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that Google lost this lawsuit because the government decided they don’t matter anymore because they don’t have good enough AI on the market?
  - jongjong 3y ago
    No. I'm suggesting that Apple won theirs because they are more important in the eyes of the corrupt government and that's what it takes to win. There can only be one winner. Second place is a loser. Just wait 10 or 20 years. Watch the system concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands and people blame everything under the sun except the design of the system. I think the winner will probably be either Microsoft or Oracle because they are the most corrupt. Seriously, does Microsoft or Oracle do anything useful these days? No, they just extort money from the government via overpriced proprietary software licenses, lock-ins and contracts obtained through corrupt practices. That's what winners do.
    - tavavex 3y ago
      How exactly does this work, in your opinion? Does "The Government" (one entity) somehow decide on something like this and forces a specific judge to rule in a certain way? If something like this was uncovered, it'd be way bigger than this lawsuit. And while you have a bit of a point about Oracle being stagnant... Microsoft? They own and develop tons of things. Microsoft isn't just Windows and Office.

thelastparadise 3y ago

[flagged]

Racing0461 3y ago

> The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?

plus 3y ago
The judge cannot override the jury's ruling, so unless Google's appeal succeeds, the ruling stays.
- brokenodo 3y ago
  The Court technically can if Google asked for JMOL prior the case going to the jury. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50
- jcranmer 3y ago
  A judgement notwithstanding the verdict allows a judge to throw out a jury verdict.
LordKeren 3y ago
Epic didn’t sue for damages. They sued to get the rules changed. The jury did not award Epic any money. The judge will be deciding how Google must remedy the situation
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Yes, as your own comment points out. Juries determine questions of fact. That can't (for the most part, there are of course exceptions) be revised by a judge. The applied penalty is a very different thing, and can be and usually is revised by the judge.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Usually what happens is a point of law gets appealed and one of the chances of action gets thrown out and the penalty that was tied to it.
3y ago

rkagerer 3y ago

Finally. I'm glad this caught up to them. I used to have a lot of warm fuzzies for Google, but they've become downright despicable in so many respects. The app store has leaned toward unfair for publishers (and users) for years, I hope something good comes of this.

jmoak3 3y ago
Like I've been saying. We're not incentivizing the stewardship of open platforms. Apple will die before they open their garden. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 I don't want to be pithy and low-effort here. I'm confused on why Google lost while Apple won.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  As other comments have said, Google's was a jury trial, Apple's not. And, even if neither were jury trials, as another another comment said, the justice system is not a hivemind: the way your case goes can and does depend on the judge/jury passing judgement. That being said, Apple isn't stupid: they probably know as of now, even if they managed to believe it didn't before, that this monopoly on distribution has a shelf life. So I'm interested to see how they expand iOS app distribution to counter the claims of monopolistic behavior in the future, not unlike the way Microsoft supported other browsers financially for years to stop the FTC suing them into the dirt over Internet Explorer. I'm generally an Apple fan, and to be totally honest, if there was another app distribution system on iOS, I doubt I would touch it. I appreciate the baseline level of quality and curation in the App Store and have no desire to leave it. I see the low-effort dreck of the Play store by comparison as undesirable. That being said, I don't grudge anyone for pointing out Apple's position in that space is uncompetitive. It is. I have no interest in alternatives but that doesn't mean alternatives shouldn't exist.
  - jmoak3 3y ago
    Thank you for the explanation. I'm also an Apple fan and would not leave the App Store easily, however I am unhappy that I am forever unable to do so. I think rulings against these companies are warranted, but I want an end game where iPhone is closer to Android's best aspects, not where Android drops them to mimic iPhone's. Google could easily stop being as "anti-competitive" by not releasing another public update of Android again, launching a new "Pixel Play Store" available on Pixel, and putting all of their effort into this platform going forward. The world would be a worse place for this, and Google would likely make more services revenue. I have a feeling developers would abandon the other manufacturer's platforms in a microsecond. If Google's not allowed to have influence over the default search/apps installed on 3rd party android phones made by Samsung/HTC, why would Google even bother with the business? They only ran it to get more mobile search users into Google Search IMO. I'm sure Google deserves to get smacked for the worst of their behavior but Apple walking away (for now) without a scratch is sending a stark message, at least to my eyes. You say Apple's time with this behavior is limited, and I can only hope you're right. Being positive, hopefully down the line, this case can be used as a wedge to peel Apple's grip open.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?

yieldcrv 3y ago
there is no sanction in the US for monopolies if the market chooses that, you just cant do anticompetitive things in the process or while you have one so simply being in the exact same position is not enough, the details of exactly how you navigate it are more important with that in mind, Apple is still vulnerable based on their behavior, but its not a slam dunk by mere nature of being in the same position for example, revenue splits were always high in app stores, they didnt jack them up higher and in fact have come down periodically as if there was competition, and the market still chose to use them. app stores have always had heavy handed selective moderation approaches, it didnt get worse its gotten better in some regards. makes it very hard to prove antitrust just because the market kept subjecting itself to these
- tomComb 3y ago
  But they are not in the exact same position - Apple has a much tighter grip on their App Store than Google, and they don’t even need to: they make money selling the devices.
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    Apple’s app store policies product users. One thing Apple has done which is very good is regulate iPhone app decelopers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dgreensp 3y ago
    I'm sure that's how Google feels! "Unfairly competing in the 'Android app distribution market'?? We are Android!!" This is one of those legal situations I really can't wrap my head around, though. The point is the situations are different enough it would have to be a different legal framework for Apple's situation, and a different day in court. I think a ruling like this is good. We need more checks on Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.

hedora 3y ago

Google has already appealed this. I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.

rpmisms 3y ago
The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with constitutionality and clearing "legal debt" (decisions outside the scope of the Court as chartered) from previous courts. I would be surprised if they take this one up.
- hedora 3y ago
  The “legal debt” argument is absurd. They’ve been expanding their charter as much as they’ve been contracting it. The majority is also openly corrupt, and will throw whatever they want out the window the second they are paid to do so. Edit: Also, this idea that they should clear legal debt is a massive expansion of their charter. The system works as follows: - Congress writes laws - If they are vague, the courts set precedents that are irreversible except in the case of dire errors. - If congress doesn’t like a precedent they clarify the law. The current court is violating separation of powers by retroactively going against the actions taken by the last 50-100 years of legislators. For instance, congress had decades to amend the constitution to say the fourth amendment doesn’t imply a right to privacy or women’s reproductive health care (including abortion) as Roe v. Wade established. The current court greatly overstepped their authority when they ruled there is no right to privacy or reproductive health care. This isn’t a minor oversight that congress forgot to consider. This is the justices deciding they have been elected dictators for life.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Your point about Roe v Wade is precisely my point. The right to abortion is simply not in the Constitution. If Congress wants to pass that law, they may, and that would be legal according to the Supreme Court. Any honest legal scholar will tell you that Roe v Wade is a ridiculous Supreme Court decision, simply because it is sua sponte law. The current court is not violating separation of power by overturning older laws. Your point about the court only overturning vague laws is completely false. The court exists as a check on Congress and the executive to hold them accountable to the texts which charter them. It is designed this way because overturning laws is far less harmful than upholding them. Government should do less, not more, and that is in our DNA as a country. The Supreme Court is acting as designed.

toss1 3y ago

>>"Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform." —— Wilson White, VP, Government Affairs & Public Policy That's the most he can say? Pretty damn low bar to beat Apple's walled garden at 'openness'. Sheesh With losing on EVERY point, there may not be a lot of room to appeal, as appeals rarely overturn findings of fact. But it will create delay. Maybe we'll ultimately get some relief.

asadotzler 3y ago

Most likely outcome is probably a consent decree like Microsoft's. Google agrees to publicly document all APIs for Android app store capabilities, and to refrain from certain kinds of business deals, and some mechanism of enforcement, perhaps embedded monitors at Goog or an onerous reporting regime. Then, with a level playing field we see if Google's Play Store can compete with other app stores, and whether Google can give Android a great app store management experience to end users.

bee_rider 3y ago

Someone needs to go after Amazon for their monopoly in the Amazon Prime Video distribution market.