5 ms·

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
  Jurors confirmed that a big part of their decision was based on Google's internal behavior, not explicitly the deals. The evidence that upper management would move sensitive conversations to chat where they knew a short 24hr retention period existed was a very influential piece, as well as some of the wording in internal emails. I always thought the Communicating with Care courses were a reasonable amount of legal paranoia, but I see how it could also look sketchy.
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    My favorite part of this whole thing is getting ammo against Google apologists (aka current Googlers not using auto-sell).
    - ralfd 3y ago
      autosell?
      - amyamyamy2 3y ago
        Autosell is a way for employees to automatically sell their Google shares as soon as they vest
its_ethan 3y ago
I heard on a podcast that some part of the difference in the two rulings was due to the fact that Google was cutting deals with some companies/developers to lure them to their store, meaning not everyone was equally subject to the 30% fee. Apple (to my knowledge) hasn't done any deals like this - everyone pays the same fee, no special treatment (until recently, when they reduced the fee for apps with revenue <$1m)
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  No, Apple does that as well: https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...
jncfhnb 3y ago
Just give it time. People tripping over themselves to insist they’re fundamentally different will lose out. It’ll even out and regulation will catch up
atonse 3y ago
Having to settle and pay $700 million is not a loss. That is NOTHING for Google. This is a huge win for them, because you can rest assured Google will get a ton of concessions out of the states in exchange of paying the fine. It's not even high enough to make Google feel "let's never do this again" – it wouldn't be for Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, any of these guys. It should be in the order tens of billions or a hefty amount of their revenue, whichever is greater. Google must be celebrating such a low fine.
- jsnell 3y ago
  First, it wasn't a fine. Second, the settlement wasn't just this $700M, it was a bunch of changes to how Android works. As explained in the article. Third, where in the world are you getting this fairytale about "concessions from the states" from?
gerash 3y ago
There's no point in trying to find an "explanation" or justification here. This is by no means a fair outcome.
madeofpalk 3y ago
The Verge has a pretty good explainer on how, in relation to the Google/Epic case https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w... The tl;dr is that the jury determined that "android app distribution" is the relevent market, and google has lots of dodgy emails where they stifled competition in it. There is no "ios app distribution" market.
turquoisevar 3y ago
The long and short of it is that it matters when you started doing it, or more precisely how dominant you were when you started doing it. If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you. If on the other hand you were open and didn’t have strict rules in place but you start changing your tune once you’re big and powerful then it could be explained as you abusing your power (i.e. luring people in with relaxed rules, only to turn up the thumbscrews once everyone depends on you). Apple has always had a walled garden with strict rules and a 30% commission, and despite that many were happy to join. Since then they’ve not turned up the thumbscrews, in fact they’ve done the opposite by lowering the commission for the vast majority of developers. The flip side is that they can’t go stricter and to a higher commission from here because they are too dominant now. That’s also in part why Apple has all these hills they’re willing to die on, anything they concede now, they can never undo or return to. They don’t have the flexibility of testing a 5% commission for example and see if that works better, because the moment they decide it didn’t work out for them and they increase it back to 15% or 30%, it can be explained as an abuse of dominance because of the people that joined in, and became dependent on them, during that test. Smaller companies can try new pricing strategies, new monetisation strategies, etc. Sure when they announce that from now on their “free plan” is discontinued some customers might moan and complain, but they never have to worry about government intervention on the basis of antitrust.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you. My head hurts.
scarface_74 3y ago
It’s simple case law. You can’t change the rules of the game after the product is purchased. People bought iPhones knowing they were locked to one store. Google claimed to be open and weren’t

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
Jurors confirmed that a big part of their decision was based on Google's internal behavior, not explicitly the deals. The evidence that upper management would move sensitive conversations to chat where they knew a short 24hr retention period existed was a very influential piece, as well as some of the wording in internal emails. I always thought the Communicating with Care courses were a reasonable amount of legal paranoia, but I see how it could also look sketchy.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  My favorite part of this whole thing is getting ammo against Google apologists (aka current Googlers not using auto-sell).
  - ralfd 3y ago
    autosell?
    - amyamyamy2 3y ago
      Autosell is a way for employees to automatically sell their Google shares as soon as they vest

its_ethan 3y ago

I heard on a podcast that some part of the difference in the two rulings was due to the fact that Google was cutting deals with some companies/developers to lure them to their store, meaning not everyone was equally subject to the 30% fee. Apple (to my knowledge) hasn't done any deals like this - everyone pays the same fee, no special treatment (until recently, when they reduced the fee for apps with revenue <$1m)

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
No, Apple does that as well: https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...

jncfhnb 3y ago

Just give it time. People tripping over themselves to insist they’re fundamentally different will lose out. It’ll even out and regulation will catch up

atonse 3y ago

Having to settle and pay $700 million is not a loss. That is NOTHING for Google. This is a huge win for them, because you can rest assured Google will get a ton of concessions out of the states in exchange of paying the fine. It's not even high enough to make Google feel "let's never do this again" – it wouldn't be for Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, any of these guys. It should be in the order tens of billions or a hefty amount of their revenue, whichever is greater. Google must be celebrating such a low fine.

jsnell 3y ago
First, it wasn't a fine. Second, the settlement wasn't just this $700M, it was a bunch of changes to how Android works. As explained in the article. Third, where in the world are you getting this fairytale about "concessions from the states" from?

gerash 3y ago

There's no point in trying to find an "explanation" or justification here. This is by no means a fair outcome.

madeofpalk 3y ago

The Verge has a pretty good explainer on how, in relation to the Google/Epic case https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w... The tl;dr is that the jury determined that "android app distribution" is the relevent market, and google has lots of dodgy emails where they stifled competition in it. There is no "ios app distribution" market.

turquoisevar 3y ago

The long and short of it is that it matters when you started doing it, or more precisely how dominant you were when you started doing it. If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you. If on the other hand you were open and didn’t have strict rules in place but you start changing your tune once you’re big and powerful then it could be explained as you abusing your power (i.e. luring people in with relaxed rules, only to turn up the thumbscrews once everyone depends on you). Apple has always had a walled garden with strict rules and a 30% commission, and despite that many were happy to join. Since then they’ve not turned up the thumbscrews, in fact they’ve done the opposite by lowering the commission for the vast majority of developers. The flip side is that they can’t go stricter and to a higher commission from here because they are too dominant now. That’s also in part why Apple has all these hills they’re willing to die on, anything they concede now, they can never undo or return to. They don’t have the flexibility of testing a 5% commission for example and see if that works better, because the moment they decide it didn’t work out for them and they increase it back to 15% or 30%, it can be explained as an abuse of dominance because of the people that joined in, and became dependent on them, during that test. Smaller companies can try new pricing strategies, new monetisation strategies, etc. Sure when they announce that from now on their “free plan” is discontinued some customers might moan and complain, but they never have to worry about government intervention on the basis of antitrust.

paulddraper 3y ago
> If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you. My head hurts.

scarface_74 3y ago

It’s simple case law. You can’t change the rules of the game after the product is purchased. People bought iPhones knowing they were locked to one store. Google claimed to be open and weren’t