48 ms·

Didn't Apple effectively win their lawsuit while having an actual monopoly on iPhone app installs? Can someone explain why Google lost despite android having a

Didn't Apple effectively win their lawsuit while having an actual monopoly on iPhone app installs? Can someone explain why Google lost despite android having all sorts of way to install apps while bypassing the play store?

meepmorp 3y ago
I'm guessing it's because this was a jury trial and Apple's wasn't.
- wnevets 3y ago
  Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    Yeah - but give the same case to 10 different juries, and you'll get different decisions. Probably will get at least one outlier with different 10 judges, too.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - kyruzic 3y ago
      There's two possible decisions the jury could make, and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. Obviously not perfect but a lot better than you describe.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        > and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. No, it's not. It's chosen at random, and they have a chance to rule out people they think would be biased - and you can't just toss anyone for any reason. It's not like Google can toss anyone they see playing a game or using an iPhone or something. And it's definitely not like Google gets to pick 6 Google groupies and Epic picks 6 Epic groupies to be on the jury.
        kyruzic 3y ago
        I didn't say they were individually selected and yes they can just throw out a certain number of potential jurors without any reason. Maybe I worded my comment poorly but the point still stands.
  - awkward 3y ago
    Epic suffered pretty hard vs Apple when internal memos came out that Epic was intentionally breaking app store rules to get a strike, with the intent to sue over that strike. That's the kind of thing that a jury is more likely to let slide than a judge, as well.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    The judiciary seems ridiculously slanted in favor of pro-business. That a bench trial would decide in favor of monopoly power is entirely unexciting & expected. That a jury trial would decide in favor of consumer choice & be anti-monopoly quite reciprocally mirrors that strong anti-trust feeling Americans very widely feel, but which their government won't do.
  - etchalon 3y ago
    We're dealing with the same laws, but not the same evidence. There wasn't much evidence in the Apple case that Apple was explicitly taking action to disadvantage or harm third-parties, and there was even less evidence that Apple utilized their economic power to ensure their dominance. If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. The evidence in Google's case showed that leadership was so paranoid about a third-party store rising to prominence, since the platform technically allowed it, they were constantly wheeling and dealing to suppress competition. Google essentially wanted to have their cake (side loading is fine! Android is open!) while eating it too (The Play Store dominates). And they accomplished this by spending a lot of money, and giving certain developers better deals than others, etc.
    - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      >If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. Basically as long as you strip away your users rights equally, you're fine. Not exactly great news for future tech...
      - etchalon 3y ago
        Both cases were about anti-competitive behavior, not user's rights.
- solardev 3y ago
  So why didn't they go for a jury trial with Apple?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Because it’s always been the case that OS vendors to third party manufacturers get treated differently than integrated players
favorited 3y ago
From the article: > 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.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  If finding out that keeping rival app stores down was what was necessary for Google to lose, shouldn't Apple lose by the same token? And I don't think intention is part of the three-step burden shifting framework last I checked in any event.
- chrisfosterelli 3y ago
  It seems the reasoning is that Google isn't really competing against the iOS app store, in which sense they don't look much like a monopoly, but just against all the potential other android app stores, in which sense they do look a lot like a monopoly. Seems sort of ironic that Apple avoided this argument by just not having any alternative app stores at all to be anticompetitive with.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    I think the ruling is more about saying Google did the wrong thing, not Apple did the right thing.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    It's more nuanced than that. Apple successfully argued that the combination hardware+software experience of iOS and its app store is "the product", since people don't buy iOS for e.g. what bootloader it uses, but rather the wide ranging ecosystem experience and the apps that Apple certifies and verifies through a "feature" of "the product". Without such tight integration of the hardware and software, the product loses immense value to both consumers and developers. Android being open actually made its own point of being "an OS with other products [app stores] running on top of it".
fbdab103 3y ago
I thought this was the case where Google execs deliberately went off the record to avoid having their chats recorded for discovery. Hiding documents during a legal hold does not make the justice system happy. Unless I am confusing trials, this article[0] goes into more detail. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted-chat-logs-antitrust-case/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted-cha...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

meepmorp 3y ago

I'm guessing it's because this was a jury trial and Apple's wasn't.

wnevets 3y ago
Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Yeah - but give the same case to 10 different juries, and you'll get different decisions. Probably will get at least one outlier with different 10 judges, too.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kyruzic 3y ago
    There's two possible decisions the jury could make, and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. Obviously not perfect but a lot better than you describe.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      > and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. No, it's not. It's chosen at random, and they have a chance to rule out people they think would be biased - and you can't just toss anyone for any reason. It's not like Google can toss anyone they see playing a game or using an iPhone or something. And it's definitely not like Google gets to pick 6 Google groupies and Epic picks 6 Epic groupies to be on the jury.
      - kyruzic 3y ago
        I didn't say they were individually selected and yes they can just throw out a certain number of potential jurors without any reason. Maybe I worded my comment poorly but the point still stands.
- awkward 3y ago
  Epic suffered pretty hard vs Apple when internal memos came out that Epic was intentionally breaking app store rules to get a strike, with the intent to sue over that strike. That's the kind of thing that a jury is more likely to let slide than a judge, as well.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  The judiciary seems ridiculously slanted in favor of pro-business. That a bench trial would decide in favor of monopoly power is entirely unexciting & expected. That a jury trial would decide in favor of consumer choice & be anti-monopoly quite reciprocally mirrors that strong anti-trust feeling Americans very widely feel, but which their government won't do.
- etchalon 3y ago
  We're dealing with the same laws, but not the same evidence. There wasn't much evidence in the Apple case that Apple was explicitly taking action to disadvantage or harm third-parties, and there was even less evidence that Apple utilized their economic power to ensure their dominance. If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. The evidence in Google's case showed that leadership was so paranoid about a third-party store rising to prominence, since the platform technically allowed it, they were constantly wheeling and dealing to suppress competition. Google essentially wanted to have their cake (side loading is fine! Android is open!) while eating it too (The Play Store dominates). And they accomplished this by spending a lot of money, and giving certain developers better deals than others, etc.
  - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
    >If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. Basically as long as you strip away your users rights equally, you're fine. Not exactly great news for future tech...
    - etchalon 3y ago
      Both cases were about anti-competitive behavior, not user's rights.
solardev 3y ago
So why didn't they go for a jury trial with Apple?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Because it’s always been the case that OS vendors to third party manufacturers get treated differently than integrated players

favorited 3y ago

From the article: > 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.

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
If finding out that keeping rival app stores down was what was necessary for Google to lose, shouldn't Apple lose by the same token? And I don't think intention is part of the three-step burden shifting framework last I checked in any event.
chrisfosterelli 3y ago
It seems the reasoning is that Google isn't really competing against the iOS app store, in which sense they don't look much like a monopoly, but just against all the potential other android app stores, in which sense they do look a lot like a monopoly. Seems sort of ironic that Apple avoided this argument by just not having any alternative app stores at all to be anticompetitive with.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  I think the ruling is more about saying Google did the wrong thing, not Apple did the right thing.
- judge2020 3y ago
  It's more nuanced than that. Apple successfully argued that the combination hardware+software experience of iOS and its app store is "the product", since people don't buy iOS for e.g. what bootloader it uses, but rather the wide ranging ecosystem experience and the apps that Apple certifies and verifies through a "feature" of "the product". Without such tight integration of the hardware and software, the product loses immense value to both consumers and developers. Android being open actually made its own point of being "an OS with other products [app stores] running on top of it".

fbdab103 3y ago

I thought this was the case where Google execs deliberately went off the record to avoid having their chats recorded for discovery. Hiding documents during a legal hold does not make the justice system happy. Unless I am confusing trials, this article[0] goes into more detail. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted-chat-logs-antitrust-case/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted-cha...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]