14 ms·

Google agrees to pay $700M in antitrust settlement reached with states

176 points by DocFeind 3y ago

primatperfctnsm 3y ago
"Insert coin to continue"
- g-b-r 3y ago
  At least they're forced to (gradually, slowly, after 15 years) make a few improvements though...
  - primatperfctnsm 3y ago
    I agree, of course, but it's not enough force. "If violence doesn't help, you're not using enough violence." (It's from a manga called 'Bleach') The one thing these settlements are good for is to make the employees and customers of Google aware of the fact, that despite being too big to fail and having their hands in a lot of pockets (not judging here, this' the way of capitalism), _the attack surface is actually gigantic and impossible to defend_. Corporations have more weak spots than the average skinny-fat human who's never been in a fight.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      Well yeah
koolba 3y ago
> Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? > Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door of your walled garden. > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world consequence of this won’t be improved competition. It will be grandma getting fleeced. It’s not that it should be possible, but making it not “scary” is not a good idea for the reality we live in.
- ehsankia 3y ago
  Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand, people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same with security.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    > Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I? The only reason people would ever use another store is if they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of course the situation on PC where you need to install another store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google made deals to prevent.
    - ehsankia 3y ago
      I'm mostly agreeing with you. Steam definitely has a monopoly of PC gaming, but it's also true that having a single place with all your games and friends is far more convenient. I'm not sure where the right balance is. Are we paying more due to the lack of competition to Valve's 30%? Would more competition be worth the fragmentation? Look at streaming services and the mess that has become. I'm not sure what the answer is.
      - georgyo 3y ago
        Steam is a bit of a very special case and I think very different from either Apple or Google stores. Steam is never part of a platform, except for maybe the steam deck, and even there it lets you very easily replace it. Steam will install other stores automatically for you. Does the game need EA's origin or what ever the epic store is called? It will install it as part of playing that game. Users will have multiple stores installed and will continue to choose Steam. In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. To even get Steam, you as a user have to make a very conscious choice to install it. Steam is very much the choice of users and even many developers. Steam is a private company and doesn't seem in the business of ever attempting to screw with or limit users. Hell, Steams development of wine/pronton is the explicit choice to give users more choice. Steam maybe an app store, but IMHO it is definitely not ever forcing anyone to do anything, unlike Apple or Google.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not illegal to not allow that at all.
- queuebert 3y ago
  Government of the people, by the people and for the people.[1] 1. Corporations have been determined to be people.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific rights should we take away from groups of people but are present as individuals?
    - son_of_gloin 3y ago
      Corporations aren't democratic organizations though so every individual in the group doesn't really have an equal access to these rights.
      - polski-g 3y ago
        Publicly traded corporations are democratic organizations. You get one vote per share you hold. If you want something to happen, the shareholders can vote for it.
      - megaman821 3y ago
        Presumably the board could stop corporate speech the majority does not agree with. It would be interesting to re-litigate this case with a company like Facebook where Zuckerberg has special voting shares. If donating to a PAC is just a group of people exercising their free speech, can you delegate your right to free speech to someone else?
        g-b-r 3y ago
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
Can someone tell me why Google "loses" and Apple still gets away with the same behaviour?
- delusional 3y ago
  My understanding is that Apple's defense is that they never opted in to a free market, and therefore they aren't required to have one. Google however sold android as being a "free market" choice, and as such can't artificially skew that market. I don't know if it really makes sense, but that's my understanding of these two verdict when held in contrast.
- gbear605 3y ago
  The EU is forcing Apple to allow third party app stores by April. As for the US issue, law cases like this are unique and have to be dealt with individually. https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-response/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-...
- didibus 3y ago
  My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with competitors. For example, they'd make a deal with Samsung that if they want Google services on Samsung phones, Samsung had to agree to not let anyone else put competing app stores or payment processing other than Samsung's own and Google's own. Where-as Apple it's more seen that they simply are not letting competitors put their alternatives on their own Phones, which isn't seen as anti-competitive, but more as how Apple itself competes. And probably Google also internally used bad language that talked more about how to prevent competitors, etc. that might have been more incriminating. So I think they see it more like if CocaCola told Walgreens they won't sell Coke products at Walgreens if Walgreens caries Pepsi products. Where Coke is seen as such a big player, that their leading market position forces Walgreens to agree, because not selling Coke would harm them financially so much due to the market leading position of Coke, but also it's seen as a anti-competitive agreement from Coke.
  - kevindamm 3y ago
mattcantstop 3y ago
One thing that always surprises me is how toothless any anti-trust settlement is. I don't think I have ever seen an anti-trust fine that was so painful that it would deter people from trying to do it in the first place. It almost always is a sum that would encourage anti-competitive behavior in the future because the fine is so much less than the spoils of the behavior.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pulse7 3y ago
This settlement is a joke...
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  you'll better enjoy your $2 or else
- hereme888 3y ago
  Not for the lawyers. I bet they just filled their multi-generational retirement fund.
  - pulse7 3y ago
    $2 for people, millions for lawyers... US has become a slave of its own legal system...
g-b-r 3y ago
To all the comments claiming that Android is open, managed cooperatively and in the best interest of users: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
- hedora 3y ago
  > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. Note that they're not agreeing to stop actively sabotaging third party android variants and app stores by encouraging app developers to take on bogus Play Service dependencies.
troyvit 3y ago
> Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store > [...] it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling. > The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech [...]", said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. It sure does. It's just not the message you think or claim it is.
- SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago
  I wonder if they can claim that as a loss and pay less taxes?
gentleman11 3y ago
And they also have to do a few small things for 5 years. That’s it? In other words, google won
alephnan 3y ago
What would have happened if Google didn’t agree?
shortsunblack 3y ago
10.5 B USD was the correct amount. Not this mere couple bucks.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
caroleva 3y ago
How do I qualify for the money rebate from google

176 points by DocFeind 3y ago

primatperfctnsm 3y ago

"Insert coin to continue"

g-b-r 3y ago
At least they're forced to (gradually, slowly, after 15 years) make a few improvements though...
- primatperfctnsm 3y ago
  I agree, of course, but it's not enough force. "If violence doesn't help, you're not using enough violence." (It's from a manga called 'Bleach') The one thing these settlements are good for is to make the employees and customers of Google aware of the fact, that despite being too big to fail and having their hands in a lot of pockets (not judging here, this' the way of capitalism), _the attack surface is actually gigantic and impossible to defend_. Corporations have more weak spots than the average skinny-fat human who's never been in a fight.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Well yeah

koolba 3y ago

> Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? > Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door of your walled garden. > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world consequence of this won’t be improved competition. It will be grandma getting fleeced. It’s not that it should be possible, but making it not “scary” is not a good idea for the reality we live in.

ehsankia 3y ago
Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand, people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same with security.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I? The only reason people would ever use another store is if they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of course the situation on PC where you need to install another store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google made deals to prevent.
  - ehsankia 3y ago
    I'm mostly agreeing with you. Steam definitely has a monopoly of PC gaming, but it's also true that having a single place with all your games and friends is far more convenient. I'm not sure where the right balance is. Are we paying more due to the lack of competition to Valve's 30%? Would more competition be worth the fragmentation? Look at streaming services and the mess that has become. I'm not sure what the answer is.
    - georgyo 3y ago
      Steam is a bit of a very special case and I think very different from either Apple or Google stores. Steam is never part of a platform, except for maybe the steam deck, and even there it lets you very easily replace it. Steam will install other stores automatically for you. Does the game need EA's origin or what ever the epic store is called? It will install it as part of playing that game. Users will have multiple stores installed and will continue to choose Steam. In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. To even get Steam, you as a user have to make a very conscious choice to install it. Steam is very much the choice of users and even many developers. Steam is a private company and doesn't seem in the business of ever attempting to screw with or limit users. Hell, Steams development of wine/pronton is the explicit choice to give users more choice. Steam maybe an app store, but IMHO it is definitely not ever forcing anyone to do anything, unlike Apple or Google.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not illegal to not allow that at all.

queuebert 3y ago
Government of the people, by the people and for the people.[1] 1. Corporations have been determined to be people.
- megaman821 3y ago
  Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific rights should we take away from groups of people but are present as individuals?
  - son_of_gloin 3y ago
    Corporations aren't democratic organizations though so every individual in the group doesn't really have an equal access to these rights.
    - polski-g 3y ago
      Publicly traded corporations are democratic organizations. You get one vote per share you hold. If you want something to happen, the shareholders can vote for it.
    - megaman821 3y ago
      Presumably the board could stop corporate speech the majority does not agree with. It would be interesting to re-litigate this case with a company like Facebook where Zuckerberg has special voting shares. If donating to a PAC is just a group of people exercising their free speech, can you delegate your right to free speech to someone else?
      - g-b-r 3y ago

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

Can someone tell me why Google "loses" and Apple still gets away with the same behaviour?

delusional 3y ago
My understanding is that Apple's defense is that they never opted in to a free market, and therefore they aren't required to have one. Google however sold android as being a "free market" choice, and as such can't artificially skew that market. I don't know if it really makes sense, but that's my understanding of these two verdict when held in contrast.
gbear605 3y ago
The EU is forcing Apple to allow third party app stores by April. As for the US issue, law cases like this are unique and have to be dealt with individually. https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-response/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-...
didibus 3y ago
My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with competitors. For example, they'd make a deal with Samsung that if they want Google services on Samsung phones, Samsung had to agree to not let anyone else put competing app stores or payment processing other than Samsung's own and Google's own. Where-as Apple it's more seen that they simply are not letting competitors put their alternatives on their own Phones, which isn't seen as anti-competitive, but more as how Apple itself competes. And probably Google also internally used bad language that talked more about how to prevent competitors, etc. that might have been more incriminating. So I think they see it more like if CocaCola told Walgreens they won't sell Coke products at Walgreens if Walgreens caries Pepsi products. Where Coke is seen as such a big player, that their leading market position forces Walgreens to agree, because not selling Coke would harm them financially so much due to the market leading position of Coke, but also it's seen as a anti-competitive agreement from Coke.
- kevindamm 3y ago

mattcantstop 3y ago

One thing that always surprises me is how toothless any anti-trust settlement is. I don't think I have ever seen an anti-trust fine that was so painful that it would deter people from trying to do it in the first place. It almost always is a sum that would encourage anti-competitive behavior in the future because the fine is so much less than the spoils of the behavior.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pulse7 3y ago

This settlement is a joke...

doublerabbit 3y ago
you'll better enjoy your $2 or else
hereme888 3y ago
Not for the lawyers. I bet they just filled their multi-generational retirement fund.
- pulse7 3y ago
  $2 for people, millions for lawyers... US has become a slave of its own legal system...

g-b-r 3y ago

To all the comments claiming that Android is open, managed cooperatively and in the best interest of users: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...

hedora 3y ago
> Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. Note that they're not agreeing to stop actively sabotaging third party android variants and app stores by encouraging app developers to take on bogus Play Service dependencies.

troyvit 3y ago

> Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store > [...] it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling. > The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech [...]", said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. It sure does. It's just not the message you think or claim it is.

SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago
I wonder if they can claim that as a loss and pay less taxes?

gentleman11 3y ago

And they also have to do a few small things for 5 years. That’s it? In other words, google won

alephnan 3y ago

What would have happened if Google didn’t agree?

shortsunblack 3y ago

10.5 B USD was the correct amount. Not this mere couple bucks.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

caroleva 3y ago

How do I qualify for the money rebate from google