4 ms·

I would encourage you to read more about the two cases and the differences between them and the rulings. Stratechery has some good articles though some are payw

I would encourage you to read more about the two cases and the differences between them and the rulings. Stratechery has some good articles though some are paywalled.

sublinear 2y ago
> "Google has a history of malicious compliance and has attempted to circumvent legislation and regulation meant to reign in their anti-competitive control over Android devices," Epic said of its demands of the search behemoth. "Our proposed injunction seeks to block Google from repeating past bad-faith tactics and open up Android devices to competition and choice for all developers and consumers." Sorry forgot to quote what I'm talking about. I agree Google tightly controls the Play Store specifically with regard to popular apps such as games. They do not have "anti-competitive control over Android devices" though. Epic's quoted claim is categorically false. If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This was in fact common practice on a lot of early Android devices. Play Store might as well be a games console and if Epic wins then they probably would want to go after Nintendo and other licensed platforms next. That's ridiculous.
- boesboes 2y ago
  Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?
  - sublinear 2y ago
    Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.
    - buildbot 2y ago
      Why in the world should a company be forced to sell their hardware and software to other companies for them to sell?
      - ThatPlayer 2y ago
        To prevent companies from being anti-competitive by using vertical integration. There was once a similar thing with movie studios and movie theaters. The Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948: https://w.wiki/AWmk https://w.wiki/AWmk (HN eats the period at the end of regular links) Another example is the car dealership system, forcing car manufacturers to sell to dealerships for them to sell.
    - starttoaster 2y ago
      > In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly. Maybe you can help me fill in the gaps as to how this is a monopoly. Now depending on where you go for a definition of a monopoly, you might find subtly different definitions. But to quote Investopedia: > A monopoly is characterized by a single company supplying a good or service, a lack of competition within the market, and no similar substitutes for the product being sold. Apple's iPhone is produced by a single company, you're right. But there is competition within the market thanks to Android, and other failed attempts at competition like Blackberry and the Windows phones. Furthermore, Apple might "stop" other competition from springing up by virtue of just being a better offering, but I don't believe anyone is quite literally halting someone from attempting to start a competing phone OS and hardware business. If the only choices are Android vs iOS, and the slew of Android phone manufacturers vs Apple, should Apple be held accountable for nobody making better offerings than what already exists? In my opinion, that answer is only "yes" if you can prove they're doing anything in back alleys to cut prospective competitors off at the knees, which as far as I know, doesn't happen. Maybe you can point me to where and how they do, though.
      - sublinear 2y ago
        If Android disappeared tomorrow, what would you call Apple's role in the smartphone market?
- swatcoder 2y ago
  This is a confusing take. The iOS ecosystem has a much stronger claim to "might as well be a games console" specifically because it was so vertically integrated, which is why their business model looked essentially identical to one from the launch of the App Store. Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. While there are differences between Google/Android/PlayStore and Apple/iOS/AppStore when it comes to platform control and accessibility, and therefore a case to be made that they could be treated differently, this difference seems to point in the entirely opposite direction what you seem to be arguing.
  - gumby 2y ago
    > Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. Could you explain why this is the case (what evolution makes it different from the game console case)? My understanding is that the percentage take is about the same in consoles and phones.
    - swatcoder 2y ago
      In a practical sense, the difference is one being asserted by influential regulatory bodies and courts. You might cheer them on or roll your eyes at them, but their influence makes it so regardless. As for their justification, I think it's rooted in the scale and scope of these devices. Over the last 15 years, smartphones and tablets have shaped the world, ended up in almost every pocket, and become a prerequisite for access to increasingly many parts of one's life and career. Game consoles, in comparison, remain a luxury with far smaller relevance to what governments are tasked to take interest in.
  - sublinear 2y ago
    > they could be treated differently Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Epic should take this case up with all the phone manufacturers that would rather just put the Play Store on their phones. If Epic didn't want their games to be locked into the Play Store that's on them. Most apps allow the user to login and access their data from any alternative platform. Google doesn't prevent this. Why can't they just update their games to allow this? They're correct that users should be free to play their games from anywhere. So... how is Google preventing them from implementing this? Their failure to compete is nobody else's fault. I'm still just not getting what Epic is complaining about.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  I'm not going to end up as a 2nd class citizen because I refuse to use Nintendo/PS/Xbox. With iOS / Play Store, we're almost there already.
- kentonv 2y ago
  > If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This isn't realistic. Nobody wants to carry two phones, and no one will choose to carry Epic's phone instead of Google's if they can't access the full Android ecosystem with it. Google has very intentionally used this to gain a monopoly on Android users even though the platform is ostensibly open source. They say to phone makers: If you want the Google Play store, you have to prohibit other stores (and bundle the Google apps, make Google Search the default, and N other things that benefit Google). Phone makers have to agree because you just can't sell a phone these days that doesn't have access to at least one of the Play Store or the Apple Store. No one would buy it. There used to be manufacturers that tried, back when the ecosystem was smaller, but they failed, and it has only become harder since. This policy is 100% designed to prevent competition from taking hold, leaving Google in complete control of the Android app ecosystem. Sure it's not as bad as Apple, but it's absolutely anti-competitive. There is a simple solution: Allow users to install competing app stores. Few people mind carrying multiple app stores on their phone (compared to carrying multiple phones). Competition will be able to grow incrementally and then maybe, someday, it will have grown enough that you could actually have a phone with only Epic's store and not Google's.
  - sublinear 2y ago
    > This isn't realistic. Nobody wants to carry two phones, and no one will choose to carry Epic's phone instead of Google's if they can't access the full Android ecosystem with it. Why can't Epic just release a device with both the Play Store and their games store? Then remove their games from the Play Store if they're so upset about it. Why not get other publishers onboard with their shiny new gaming device to sell through their competing store? No matter how you slice this, the anti-competitive entity is Epic.
notatoad 2y ago
how about instead of telling people to read more, you just tell us what point you're trying to make.

I would encourage you to read more about the two cases and the differences between them and the rulings. Stratechery has some good articles though some are paywalled.

sublinear 2y ago

> "Google has a history of malicious compliance and has attempted to circumvent legislation and regulation meant to reign in their anti-competitive control over Android devices," Epic said of its demands of the search behemoth. "Our proposed injunction seeks to block Google from repeating past bad-faith tactics and open up Android devices to competition and choice for all developers and consumers." Sorry forgot to quote what I'm talking about. I agree Google tightly controls the Play Store specifically with regard to popular apps such as games. They do not have "anti-competitive control over Android devices" though. Epic's quoted claim is categorically false. If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This was in fact common practice on a lot of early Android devices. Play Store might as well be a games console and if Epic wins then they probably would want to go after Nintendo and other licensed platforms next. That's ridiculous.

boesboes 2y ago
Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?
- sublinear 2y ago
  Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.
  - buildbot 2y ago
    Why in the world should a company be forced to sell their hardware and software to other companies for them to sell?
    - ThatPlayer 2y ago
      To prevent companies from being anti-competitive by using vertical integration. There was once a similar thing with movie studios and movie theaters. The Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948: https://w.wiki/AWmk https://w.wiki/AWmk (HN eats the period at the end of regular links) Another example is the car dealership system, forcing car manufacturers to sell to dealerships for them to sell.
  - starttoaster 2y ago
    > In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly. Maybe you can help me fill in the gaps as to how this is a monopoly. Now depending on where you go for a definition of a monopoly, you might find subtly different definitions. But to quote Investopedia: > A monopoly is characterized by a single company supplying a good or service, a lack of competition within the market, and no similar substitutes for the product being sold. Apple's iPhone is produced by a single company, you're right. But there is competition within the market thanks to Android, and other failed attempts at competition like Blackberry and the Windows phones. Furthermore, Apple might "stop" other competition from springing up by virtue of just being a better offering, but I don't believe anyone is quite literally halting someone from attempting to start a competing phone OS and hardware business. If the only choices are Android vs iOS, and the slew of Android phone manufacturers vs Apple, should Apple be held accountable for nobody making better offerings than what already exists? In my opinion, that answer is only "yes" if you can prove they're doing anything in back alleys to cut prospective competitors off at the knees, which as far as I know, doesn't happen. Maybe you can point me to where and how they do, though.
    - sublinear 2y ago
      If Android disappeared tomorrow, what would you call Apple's role in the smartphone market?
swatcoder 2y ago
This is a confusing take. The iOS ecosystem has a much stronger claim to "might as well be a games console" specifically because it was so vertically integrated, which is why their business model looked essentially identical to one from the launch of the App Store. Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. While there are differences between Google/Android/PlayStore and Apple/iOS/AppStore when it comes to platform control and accessibility, and therefore a case to be made that they could be treated differently, this difference seems to point in the entirely opposite direction what you seem to be arguing.
- gumby 2y ago
  > Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. Could you explain why this is the case (what evolution makes it different from the game console case)? My understanding is that the percentage take is about the same in consoles and phones.
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    In a practical sense, the difference is one being asserted by influential regulatory bodies and courts. You might cheer them on or roll your eyes at them, but their influence makes it so regardless. As for their justification, I think it's rooted in the scale and scope of these devices. Over the last 15 years, smartphones and tablets have shaped the world, ended up in almost every pocket, and become a prerequisite for access to increasingly many parts of one's life and career. Game consoles, in comparison, remain a luxury with far smaller relevance to what governments are tasked to take interest in.
- sublinear 2y ago
  > they could be treated differently Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Epic should take this case up with all the phone manufacturers that would rather just put the Play Store on their phones. If Epic didn't want their games to be locked into the Play Store that's on them. Most apps allow the user to login and access their data from any alternative platform. Google doesn't prevent this. Why can't they just update their games to allow this? They're correct that users should be free to play their games from anywhere. So... how is Google preventing them from implementing this? Their failure to compete is nobody else's fault. I'm still just not getting what Epic is complaining about.
BlueTemplar 2y ago
I'm not going to end up as a 2nd class citizen because I refuse to use Nintendo/PS/Xbox. With iOS / Play Store, we're almost there already.
kentonv 2y ago
> If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This isn't realistic. Nobody wants to carry two phones, and no one will choose to carry Epic's phone instead of Google's if they can't access the full Android ecosystem with it. Google has very intentionally used this to gain a monopoly on Android users even though the platform is ostensibly open source. They say to phone makers: If you want the Google Play store, you have to prohibit other stores (and bundle the Google apps, make Google Search the default, and N other things that benefit Google). Phone makers have to agree because you just can't sell a phone these days that doesn't have access to at least one of the Play Store or the Apple Store. No one would buy it. There used to be manufacturers that tried, back when the ecosystem was smaller, but they failed, and it has only become harder since. This policy is 100% designed to prevent competition from taking hold, leaving Google in complete control of the Android app ecosystem. Sure it's not as bad as Apple, but it's absolutely anti-competitive. There is a simple solution: Allow users to install competing app stores. Few people mind carrying multiple app stores on their phone (compared to carrying multiple phones). Competition will be able to grow incrementally and then maybe, someday, it will have grown enough that you could actually have a phone with only Epic's store and not Google's.
- sublinear 2y ago
  > This isn't realistic. Nobody wants to carry two phones, and no one will choose to carry Epic's phone instead of Google's if they can't access the full Android ecosystem with it. Why can't Epic just release a device with both the Play Store and their games store? Then remove their games from the Play Store if they're so upset about it. Why not get other publishers onboard with their shiny new gaming device to sell through their competing store? No matter how you slice this, the anti-competitive entity is Epic.

notatoad 2y ago

how about instead of telling people to read more, you just tell us what point you're trying to make.