5 ms·

um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled

LordKeren 3y ago
Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is the arbiter of android and anything but extremely anti competitive
- deepsun 3y ago
  > ... anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    If other manufacturers were licensing the OS. Like Microsoft and Internet Explorer back in the day
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    User safety seems like a much more compelling justification for anti-competitive behavior than money.
    - lostmsu 3y ago
      There's no extra "safety". It's money in both cases.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        I don’t claim to understand their actual reasoning, and I’m 100% willing to believe that Apple actually is not being honest and could handle alternative stores. But, by not opening up for any amount of money, they at least have remained consistent with their claim.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The non-US world overwhelmingly uses Android more than iOS, and yet everyone's personal security has not crumbled into dust. I will absolutely agree that Android's security posture (both in the OS itself and its app ecosystem) is worse than Apple's, but that doesn't seem to make all that much of a practical difference, does it?
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        I think my comment was maybe ambiguous. I have no idea if iOS or Android is better (or maybe if iOS is actually worse on some basic level, but they can rely on the single store to reach parity). But, their justification is at least plausible. Do I think they actually telling the truth? I think it at least is a case of financially motivated reasoning. But they haven’t completely given it away. Google has by being willing to open up as long as some financial requirements are met.
  - shagie 3y ago
    Read the complaint against Microsoft from back in the day - https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp Consider how many of those items apply to Google's behavior and how many apply to Apple's. That Apple is the only way to get the hardware or software for their products (compare to getting Google software licensed on Samsung) is a very important distinction.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I don't see why the Microsoft case is all that relevant; it's not like Microsoft is the archetypal definition of monopoly behavior in hardware/software, and only companies that do things the Microsoft way should be punished. I personally don't think the distinction you point out should actually be important at all. The end result is an anti-competitive platform, and that's all that should matter. If we go by the oft-used test of consumer harm, consumers get harmed in exactly the same way on both platforms, with higher prices (due to percentage fees that you can't opt out of) than if the market were more open.
    - deepsun 3y ago
      At some point in time, the only way to get a phone hardware was Bell Telephone Company. That did constitute a monopoly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  The mental gymnastics outplay here are wild. Google is anticompetitive because they allowed users to install third party apps, but paid big players not to develop app stores. But if they had just done what Apple does, and just ban third party installs all together, that'd be what? Hyper competitive and fair? It absolutely pains me to see Google essentially punished for having the only phone platform that allows users to install their own apps.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Couldn't agree more. It's bizarre to think that one company should be punished because they theoretically had a competitive platform, but did some shady business deals to keep it noncompetitive; but another company is completely in the clear making a platform that is noncompetitive by design, with technical measures in place to ensure it can't be. I kinda get how it plays out that way in a legal sense, but it still baffles me that so many people can simultaneously support this ruling against Google and continue to praise Apple's practices. Cognitive dissonance (and the Jobsian RDF) is a thing.
musictubes 3y ago
The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. Google opens itself up to scrutiny because they both offer the ability to compete but then actively use their influence to try to stop that competition.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.
  - skydhash 3y ago
    > They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app. They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. You are clearly missing the point on purpose. Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple and you had to pay 30% of the cost of your goods to Apple for the privilege of transporting them. This would be OK, because you'll still be able to walk or maybe even use rail transport. Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). You HAVE to support iOS, or you'll go out of business. No alternatives.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        And before someone tries to refute this part of your argument: sure, Android is an alternative... if you have a very niche app that somehow only caters to Android users, and somehow caters to the comparatively small percentage of Android users who are willing to actually pay for apps. Ultimately if you're a sizeable company that wants to operate in the US, and a mobile app is something you need to offer, you have to build one for iOS. If you don't, you'll fail. I would say these days you aren't going to do quite as well if you don't also build an Android app, but you can probably get away with it in quite a few markets if you really didn't want to. Heh, I remember when Instagram was iOS-only, and that was the case for... at least a year? More?
dwaite 3y ago
Google created the opportunity for "markets" of android alternative app stores and alternative in-app payments, but then leveraged their control of other areas (such as OEM distribution of android and play services, revenue sharing, marketing) to squash competition in these areas. Apple on the other hand has tried very hard to make sure such perceptions of markets do not exist; for instance, the requirements they gave to Microsoft for shipping a game subscription service on iOS is that the games themselves had to be in Apple's App Store, pass App Store review, and take payments for DLC or currency via in-app purchase. This is also IMO why Apple will never actually lock down macOS so that things are only available in the Mac App Store. Whether or not it is a good idea, they can't defend it legally.
kelnos 3y ago
I agree that Apple does have that monopoly. I guess the difference is that Google actually does technically allow third-party app stores, but used their monopoly position to squash them, at least in the realm of pre-installs? I'm not sure why this should matter, though. I don't see why it's somehow better to use technical means to refuse to allow there to be a competitive market, than to use shady business deals to ensure a competitive market doesn't grow.

LordKeren 3y ago

Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is the arbiter of android and anything but extremely anti competitive

deepsun 3y ago
> ... anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  If other manufacturers were licensing the OS. Like Microsoft and Internet Explorer back in the day
- bee_rider 3y ago
  User safety seems like a much more compelling justification for anti-competitive behavior than money.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    There's no extra "safety". It's money in both cases.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I don’t claim to understand their actual reasoning, and I’m 100% willing to believe that Apple actually is not being honest and could handle alternative stores. But, by not opening up for any amount of money, they at least have remained consistent with their claim.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The non-US world overwhelmingly uses Android more than iOS, and yet everyone's personal security has not crumbled into dust. I will absolutely agree that Android's security posture (both in the OS itself and its app ecosystem) is worse than Apple's, but that doesn't seem to make all that much of a practical difference, does it?
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I think my comment was maybe ambiguous. I have no idea if iOS or Android is better (or maybe if iOS is actually worse on some basic level, but they can rely on the single store to reach parity). But, their justification is at least plausible. Do I think they actually telling the truth? I think it at least is a case of financially motivated reasoning. But they haven’t completely given it away. Google has by being willing to open up as long as some financial requirements are met.
- shagie 3y ago
  Read the complaint against Microsoft from back in the day - https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp Consider how many of those items apply to Google's behavior and how many apply to Apple's. That Apple is the only way to get the hardware or software for their products (compare to getting Google software licensed on Samsung) is a very important distinction.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I don't see why the Microsoft case is all that relevant; it's not like Microsoft is the archetypal definition of monopoly behavior in hardware/software, and only companies that do things the Microsoft way should be punished. I personally don't think the distinction you point out should actually be important at all. The end result is an anti-competitive platform, and that's all that should matter. If we go by the oft-used test of consumer harm, consumers get harmed in exactly the same way on both platforms, with higher prices (due to percentage fees that you can't opt out of) than if the market were more open.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    At some point in time, the only way to get a phone hardware was Bell Telephone Company. That did constitute a monopoly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
The mental gymnastics outplay here are wild. Google is anticompetitive because they allowed users to install third party apps, but paid big players not to develop app stores. But if they had just done what Apple does, and just ban third party installs all together, that'd be what? Hyper competitive and fair? It absolutely pains me to see Google essentially punished for having the only phone platform that allows users to install their own apps.
- theshackleford 3y ago
  [flagged]
- kelnos 3y ago
  Couldn't agree more. It's bizarre to think that one company should be punished because they theoretically had a competitive platform, but did some shady business deals to keep it noncompetitive; but another company is completely in the clear making a platform that is noncompetitive by design, with technical measures in place to ensure it can't be. I kinda get how it plays out that way in a legal sense, but it still baffles me that so many people can simultaneously support this ruling against Google and continue to praise Apple's practices. Cognitive dissonance (and the Jobsian RDF) is a thing.

musictubes 3y ago

The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. Google opens itself up to scrutiny because they both offer the ability to compete but then actively use their influence to try to stop that competition.

cyberax 3y ago
> The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.
- skydhash 3y ago
  > They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app. They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. You are clearly missing the point on purpose. Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple and you had to pay 30% of the cost of your goods to Apple for the privilege of transporting them. This would be OK, because you'll still be able to walk or maybe even use rail transport. Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). You HAVE to support iOS, or you'll go out of business. No alternatives.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      And before someone tries to refute this part of your argument: sure, Android is an alternative... if you have a very niche app that somehow only caters to Android users, and somehow caters to the comparatively small percentage of Android users who are willing to actually pay for apps. Ultimately if you're a sizeable company that wants to operate in the US, and a mobile app is something you need to offer, you have to build one for iOS. If you don't, you'll fail. I would say these days you aren't going to do quite as well if you don't also build an Android app, but you can probably get away with it in quite a few markets if you really didn't want to. Heh, I remember when Instagram was iOS-only, and that was the case for... at least a year? More?

dwaite 3y ago

Google created the opportunity for "markets" of android alternative app stores and alternative in-app payments, but then leveraged their control of other areas (such as OEM distribution of android and play services, revenue sharing, marketing) to squash competition in these areas. Apple on the other hand has tried very hard to make sure such perceptions of markets do not exist; for instance, the requirements they gave to Microsoft for shipping a game subscription service on iOS is that the games themselves had to be in Apple's App Store, pass App Store review, and take payments for DLC or currency via in-app purchase. This is also IMO why Apple will never actually lock down macOS so that things are only available in the Mac App Store. Whether or not it is a good idea, they can't defend it legally.

kelnos 3y ago

I agree that Apple does have that monopoly. I guess the difference is that Google actually does technically allow third-party app stores, but used their monopoly position to squash them, at least in the realm of pre-installs? I'm not sure why this should matter, though. I don't see why it's somehow better to use technical means to refuse to allow there to be a competitive market, than to use shady business deals to ensure a competitive market doesn't grow.