4 ms·

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

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".
  - behnamoh 3y ago
    So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?
    - 8note 3y ago
      The open model has won more openness, which is good for open models
      - Jensson 3y ago
        But bad for incremental opening of things. It isn't like Apple will see this and think "oh, I want to to happen to me as well!".
    - jwells89 3y ago
      The way I’m reading it is that your platform needs to be totally open, desktop-OS-style, or manufactured as a single piece iOS/console style. Anything between those two is where the trouble comes in.
      - stephenr 3y ago
        Isn't this just as simple as: if you claim to be open/allow something (alternative stores) you can't then do back room deals to prevent competition with them. As someone else said: Google wants to make big loud claims about android being "open" but also wants to prevent anyone from competing with them.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        But most people don't care much about those claims. If the end result is "Google stops claiming to be open", that's a terrible outcome.
        stephenr 3y ago
        Well I guess in a scenario where Google decides to stop working with other hardware vendors and just makes their own phones running their own software, their existing hardware partners will have three options: exit the phone business; continue using something forked/continued from the android core as it is "now"; or move their phones to a separate platform (ie webos, or... Samsung had one too, tizen?) Unless every single existing android vendor stops making phones, the result is more actual competition.
- modeless 3y ago
  It's not the first time Google has been paradoxically punished for being more open than Apple. When you have partners and competitors then there are a lot of people to argue against you in court. When you forbid competition and partner with nobody then the people harmed are the theoretical partners and competitors you would have had, but theoretical people don't show up in court.
  - MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
    Exactly. Epic actually created a third party store on Android, and then Google abused their monopoly position and colluded with phone manufacturers to hurt Epic's store. Apple just didn't allow them to create a store at all.
  - stephenr 3y ago
    Your last sentence almost gets the point: Apple never claimed iOS is an open platform open, nor made it available to other hardware vendors to use as they wish. This isn't Google being "punished for being more open" it's punishing them for claiming to be open and then doing a heap of hidden deals to prevent competition.
    - modeless 3y ago
      The point is that what Apple did is as bad or worse from the perspective of promoting competition in healthy markets, but it's more difficult to prove and quantify the harm, so it doesn't get punished.
      - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        On one of the platforms it was possible for epic to make a third party app store, and on another it wasn't. That alone should tell any sane person which platform was 'worse'. It's absolutely wild and a failing of our legal system somewhere that the company with the worst effect actually won their own case.
        3y ago
- mise_en_place 3y ago
  Google was really a victim of their own success. By making Android an open platform, they increased adoption by smartphone OEMs, but on the flip side it made them liable in this very specific case.
  - xuki 3y ago
    It’s optional to use your position as the OS developer to squash other app stores.
DeIlliad 3y ago
We learned in the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple cut sweetheart deals with Netflix and other companies as well. Am I missing how this is different?
- lijok 3y ago
  Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores
  - amf12 3y ago
    But, that's a false premise. Apple doesn't allow competing app stores.
    - lijok 3y ago
      Which is precisely why Apple couldn’t have been making deals for the purpose of undermining competing app stores.
  - Drew_ 3y ago
    However, Apple's deals were for the purpose of undermining competing payment systems.
    - lijok 3y ago
      They weren’t, because Apple does not allow competing payment systems.
      - Drew_ 3y ago
        They do just not directly in-app. Many apps only allow subscription via the web. Namely Netflix and Amazon.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You mean like Epic cut with console makers for co-marketing dollars or like every company does with large customers? I’ve got news for you - AWS also cut special deals with AWS, Spotify with GCP and OpenAI with Azure. Do you really think large comoanirs get the same deals as the creator of random Indy app maker?

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".
- behnamoh 3y ago
  So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?
  - 8note 3y ago
    The open model has won more openness, which is good for open models
    - Jensson 3y ago
      But bad for incremental opening of things. It isn't like Apple will see this and think "oh, I want to to happen to me as well!".
  - jwells89 3y ago
    The way I’m reading it is that your platform needs to be totally open, desktop-OS-style, or manufactured as a single piece iOS/console style. Anything between those two is where the trouble comes in.
    - stephenr 3y ago
      Isn't this just as simple as: if you claim to be open/allow something (alternative stores) you can't then do back room deals to prevent competition with them. As someone else said: Google wants to make big loud claims about android being "open" but also wants to prevent anyone from competing with them.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        But most people don't care much about those claims. If the end result is "Google stops claiming to be open", that's a terrible outcome.
        stephenr 3y ago
        Well I guess in a scenario where Google decides to stop working with other hardware vendors and just makes their own phones running their own software, their existing hardware partners will have three options: exit the phone business; continue using something forked/continued from the android core as it is "now"; or move their phones to a separate platform (ie webos, or... Samsung had one too, tizen?) Unless every single existing android vendor stops making phones, the result is more actual competition.
modeless 3y ago
It's not the first time Google has been paradoxically punished for being more open than Apple. When you have partners and competitors then there are a lot of people to argue against you in court. When you forbid competition and partner with nobody then the people harmed are the theoretical partners and competitors you would have had, but theoretical people don't show up in court.
- MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
  Exactly. Epic actually created a third party store on Android, and then Google abused their monopoly position and colluded with phone manufacturers to hurt Epic's store. Apple just didn't allow them to create a store at all.
- stephenr 3y ago
  Your last sentence almost gets the point: Apple never claimed iOS is an open platform open, nor made it available to other hardware vendors to use as they wish. This isn't Google being "punished for being more open" it's punishing them for claiming to be open and then doing a heap of hidden deals to prevent competition.
  - modeless 3y ago
    The point is that what Apple did is as bad or worse from the perspective of promoting competition in healthy markets, but it's more difficult to prove and quantify the harm, so it doesn't get punished.
    - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      On one of the platforms it was possible for epic to make a third party app store, and on another it wasn't. That alone should tell any sane person which platform was 'worse'. It's absolutely wild and a failing of our legal system somewhere that the company with the worst effect actually won their own case.
      - 3y ago
mise_en_place 3y ago
Google was really a victim of their own success. By making Android an open platform, they increased adoption by smartphone OEMs, but on the flip side it made them liable in this very specific case.
- xuki 3y ago
  It’s optional to use your position as the OS developer to squash other app stores.

DeIlliad 3y ago

We learned in the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple cut sweetheart deals with Netflix and other companies as well. Am I missing how this is different?

lijok 3y ago
Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores
- amf12 3y ago
  But, that's a false premise. Apple doesn't allow competing app stores.
  - lijok 3y ago
    Which is precisely why Apple couldn’t have been making deals for the purpose of undermining competing app stores.
- Drew_ 3y ago
  However, Apple's deals were for the purpose of undermining competing payment systems.
  - lijok 3y ago
    They weren’t, because Apple does not allow competing payment systems.
    - Drew_ 3y ago
      They do just not directly in-app. Many apps only allow subscription via the web. Namely Netflix and Amazon.
scarface_74 3y ago
You mean like Epic cut with console makers for co-marketing dollars or like every company does with large customers? I’ve got news for you - AWS also cut special deals with AWS, Spotify with GCP and OpenAI with Azure. Do you really think large comoanirs get the same deals as the creator of random Indy app maker?