5 ms·

I haven't been following this as closely as I maybe should have, but I'm a bit confused why Google's app store would be broken up as a monopoly but Apple's woul

I haven't been following this as closely as I maybe should have, but I'm a bit confused why Google's app store would be broken up as a monopoly but Apple's wouldn't, especially when Android allows sideloading?

nine_zeros 2y ago
Apple would be too - once the precedent is set with Google. It just so happens that the Google case made its way to the judge first in time.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  The court already ruled in favour of Apple, unfortunately.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dns_snek 2y ago
They should both be broken up eventually but I can only imagine they're being treated as completely separate cases so they're at different stages of the process.
PaulWaldman 2y ago
Not only sideloading, but there are actual Play Store alternativities already available for Android.
- jp191919 2y ago
  Play store also tries to, very annoyingly, update apps that weren't installed from play store
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm a long time F-Droid user and have never seen this. Under what circumstances?
    - noads111 2y ago
      This is probably when installing an APK of an app that is available on the play store, being the same app id play store will pick it up. The main use case for doing this is probably revanced, especially for patches like reddit that don't change the app id.
    - jp191919 2y ago
      Installed Nextcloud from F-droid, Play store tries to update it. Nextcloud is also available on play store, and newer versions are available on play store before F-droid.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
Simple. Apple never allowed side loading, from the beginning, even when they had 0.0% market share. This means it’s basically impossible to show that they have illegally acted to maintain a monopoly - when they didn’t change anything. Having a monopoly is not illegal - changing things to keep a monopoly, is. This came up during Apple vs Epic. Did Apple change the rate to 50% when they had a monopoly? No. Did Apple retroactively ban a major app category? No. Did Apple add various fees and fines that weren’t there from the beginning? No. Did Apple force IAP, when this wasn’t initially required? No. Android, on the other hand, had a time before the Play Store and before the heavier restrictions on sideloading…
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Never allowed without jailbreaking. My iOS 3 device still has Cydia.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Jailbreaking and Unlocking phones was not even legal at the time, and did not receive a DMCA exemption until 2012, so it’s legally irrelevant.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      If jailbreaking was ever illegal that just shows what a grip the copyright mafia has over this country.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up? The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.
  - 2y ago
dagmx 2y ago
Honestly at the time of writing, only gjsman-1000 has given you the correct answer if somewhat incomplete. Everyone else is just telling you what they think should happen or putting it up to the difference in courts, while ignoring the evidence that Epic provided in the case. The issue is not monopoly and this is where people get hung up. It’s about anticompetitive behaviour enabled by a monopoly (or any level of market dominance) Google was found to be anticompetitive because even though they allow other stores and side loading, they were pushing OEMs to exclude other stores and making sweetheart deals to prevent apps going to other stores. Hence they were using their market position to harm their competing stores. Link to the findings https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... Apple has no competitor in the App Store for its platform outside of the EU, and therefore can’t be found anticompetitive on the same grounds that Google was. They maybe found anticompetitive if they used their store to harm competition at the application level but that hasn’t been proven yet either. The closest has been in the EU (and to a lesser degree CA) where they were found in violation of anti-steering but those are distinct.
- tantalor 2y ago
  > Apple has no competitor in the App Store iOS and Android appstores are not distinct markets. They compete for the same users (mobile phone users).
  - dagmx 2y ago
    As much as you may say that out loud, it’s not how the market is defined and nobody has been able to interpret it your way in a legal context in any jurisdiction. The legal precedent is that each store only services the ecosystem they’re on, and that is the scope of the market. More so, Apple has argued and legally been accepted by the EU that the store for each of its platforms are scoped by the individual platform. So the iOS store is not the same as the iPadOS store. If you can prove your case legally, there are companies that will pay you tens of millions of dollars. Till then, opinions to the contrary are just shouting in the wind.
- solardev 2y ago
solardev 2y ago
If memory serves, it was different judges in different courts. Google just got unlucky or Apple had better lawyers. A lot of our justice system isn't really deterministic, and judge shopping is totally a thing :( It's unfair, and I wish we had a better system than that. Here's one article... 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...
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  Different judges, same court.
- kyriakos 2y ago
  not very familiar with US legal system but can't Google's case be used as precedent for Apple?
  - solardev 2y ago
    The judge specifically told them to pretend the other case wasn't happening. From the article: > "Nothing in the Apple case is directly relevant to the Google case — in fact, the judge barred both sides from even bringing it up. Google’s lawyers never got to argue to the jury that Apple won."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lupusreal 2y ago
The administrative class in America use Apple and sneer at Android.
redwall_hp 2y ago
Because a jury in this particular case just determined that. Lawsuits are decided individually, and "but someone else did crime too" isn't a factor. Apple should have antitrust action taken as well, and hopefully will in time. They sure are in for a rude awakening in Europe with their malicious noncompliance to EU laws...
SkyPuncher 2y ago
Likely because of the other markets they operate in. Apple isn’t both the world largest search engine and one of the largest digital markets.
SllX 2y ago
Apple has not been ruled a monopoly in any capacity. Google has.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
How does the market share for Google's "app store" compare with the market share for Apple's "app store".

nine_zeros 2y ago

Apple would be too - once the precedent is set with Google. It just so happens that the Google case made its way to the judge first in time.

mvdtnz 2y ago
The court already ruled in favour of Apple, unfortunately.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dns_snek 2y ago

They should both be broken up eventually but I can only imagine they're being treated as completely separate cases so they're at different stages of the process.

PaulWaldman 2y ago

Not only sideloading, but there are actual Play Store alternativities already available for Android.

jp191919 2y ago
Play store also tries to, very annoyingly, update apps that weren't installed from play store
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm a long time F-Droid user and have never seen this. Under what circumstances?
  - noads111 2y ago
    This is probably when installing an APK of an app that is available on the play store, being the same app id play store will pick it up. The main use case for doing this is probably revanced, especially for patches like reddit that don't change the app id.
  - jp191919 2y ago
    Installed Nextcloud from F-droid, Play store tries to update it. Nextcloud is also available on play store, and newer versions are available on play store before F-droid.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

Simple. Apple never allowed side loading, from the beginning, even when they had 0.0% market share. This means it’s basically impossible to show that they have illegally acted to maintain a monopoly - when they didn’t change anything. Having a monopoly is not illegal - changing things to keep a monopoly, is. This came up during Apple vs Epic. Did Apple change the rate to 50% when they had a monopoly? No. Did Apple retroactively ban a major app category? No. Did Apple add various fees and fines that weren’t there from the beginning? No. Did Apple force IAP, when this wasn’t initially required? No. Android, on the other hand, had a time before the Play Store and before the heavier restrictions on sideloading…

throwaway48476 2y ago
Never allowed without jailbreaking. My iOS 3 device still has Cydia.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Jailbreaking and Unlocking phones was not even legal at the time, and did not receive a DMCA exemption until 2012, so it’s legally irrelevant.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    If jailbreaking was ever illegal that just shows what a grip the copyright mafia has over this country.
mvdtnz 2y ago
No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up? The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.
- 2y ago

dagmx 2y ago

Honestly at the time of writing, only gjsman-1000 has given you the correct answer if somewhat incomplete. Everyone else is just telling you what they think should happen or putting it up to the difference in courts, while ignoring the evidence that Epic provided in the case. The issue is not monopoly and this is where people get hung up. It’s about anticompetitive behaviour enabled by a monopoly (or any level of market dominance) Google was found to be anticompetitive because even though they allow other stores and side loading, they were pushing OEMs to exclude other stores and making sweetheart deals to prevent apps going to other stores. Hence they were using their market position to harm their competing stores. Link to the findings https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... Apple has no competitor in the App Store for its platform outside of the EU, and therefore can’t be found anticompetitive on the same grounds that Google was. They maybe found anticompetitive if they used their store to harm competition at the application level but that hasn’t been proven yet either. The closest has been in the EU (and to a lesser degree CA) where they were found in violation of anti-steering but those are distinct.

tantalor 2y ago
> Apple has no competitor in the App Store iOS and Android appstores are not distinct markets. They compete for the same users (mobile phone users).
- dagmx 2y ago
  As much as you may say that out loud, it’s not how the market is defined and nobody has been able to interpret it your way in a legal context in any jurisdiction. The legal precedent is that each store only services the ecosystem they’re on, and that is the scope of the market. More so, Apple has argued and legally been accepted by the EU that the store for each of its platforms are scoped by the individual platform. So the iOS store is not the same as the iPadOS store. If you can prove your case legally, there are companies that will pay you tens of millions of dollars. Till then, opinions to the contrary are just shouting in the wind.
solardev 2y ago

solardev 2y ago

If memory serves, it was different judges in different courts. Google just got unlucky or Apple had better lawyers. A lot of our justice system isn't really deterministic, and judge shopping is totally a thing :( It's unfair, and I wish we had a better system than that. Here's one article... 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...

mvdtnz 2y ago
Different judges, same court.
kyriakos 2y ago
not very familiar with US legal system but can't Google's case be used as precedent for Apple?
- solardev 2y ago
  The judge specifically told them to pretend the other case wasn't happening. From the article: > "Nothing in the Apple case is directly relevant to the Google case — in fact, the judge barred both sides from even bringing it up. Google’s lawyers never got to argue to the jury that Apple won."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lupusreal 2y ago

The administrative class in America use Apple and sneer at Android.

redwall_hp 2y ago

Because a jury in this particular case just determined that. Lawsuits are decided individually, and "but someone else did crime too" isn't a factor. Apple should have antitrust action taken as well, and hopefully will in time. They sure are in for a rude awakening in Europe with their malicious noncompliance to EU laws...

SkyPuncher 2y ago

Likely because of the other markets they operate in. Apple isn’t both the world largest search engine and one of the largest digital markets.

SllX 2y ago

Apple has not been ruled a monopoly in any capacity. Google has.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

How does the market share for Google's "app store" compare with the market share for Apple's "app store".