5 ms·

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 al

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.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        They don't have to stop working with other vendors to stop being open.
        stephenr 3y ago
        That depends entirely on how you define "being open". To me what is open about the android platform is that it's used (and even customised) by multiple vendors.
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.

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.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        They don't have to stop working with other vendors to stop being open.
        stephenr 3y ago
        That depends entirely on how you define "being open". To me what is open about the android platform is that it's used (and even customised) by multiple vendors.

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.