14 ms·

Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (

by tmtvl 2y ago

Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't? Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third party app stores?
- iLoveOncall 2y ago
  In the EU only
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
    - tencentshill 2y ago
      What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > percentage Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
      - atrus 2y ago
        > My phone Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
        weikju 2y ago
        Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
      - ribosometronome 2y ago
        The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
        Spivak 2y ago
        Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
        tadfisher 2y ago
        What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > What is the downside for the consumer here? Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets. Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware. To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would: - Let me access functions like customizing firmware - Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem) - Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store. The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
    - NotPractical 2y ago
      The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization. [1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up: In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
- tiledjinn 2y ago
  Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.
xnx 2y ago
It is ridiculous. From Google's reply (https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-games-verdict-appeal/ https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-...): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading."
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > Initially, there wasn't a requirement to ship Android with an app store That's exactly the same case for iphones, Steve Jobs initial plan (and execution) was to install apps from Safari, the prototype of PWAs.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      True; except that the iPhone didn't allow apps from anywhere, at all. Consider damages, from a legal perspective. Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your proprietary 3D Printer? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your dishwasher? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for an ecosystem which is, and was, always closed? No, no, and (currently) no. You absolutely can claim damages though for building up an ecosystem that then turns into a bait-and-switch. Case: Android. Edit: Also, the commenter below is wrong. Steve Jobs talked about the 30% cut in the very introduction of the App Store. The 30% cut was also required on all in-app purchases, but by a legal agreement instead of an automated collection method.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        As someone mentioned, the app store started without a 30% cut so they also baited and switched. The only difference is that Apple won the case because Justice works like that. Different judges and it would have lost too.
cma 2y ago
> and where you can easily install apps through other means When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for the first time.
  - cma 2y ago
    I believe the right thing I wanted to refer to is unattended app updates, enabled for third party sideloaded stores only with Android 12 or so. Maybe 12 added it back after it was taken away at some earlier point?
    - kokada 2y ago
      I am an Android user for a long time (since Android 2.2) and used pretty much every version from then on. Google devices (from Nexus to Android One devices and now Pixels) pretty much always allowed unattended updates for a long time (you may be right about Android 12, my memory is fuzzy here). And I never remember having scary warnings for sideloaded apps, sure, Android made it more difficult to install them (by having a permission per app instead a global permission, but I would say this was a very welcome change), but it was never convoluted or difficult. But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update. So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        I think what people upthread are talking about is allowing third-party stores (like F-Droid) to do unattended updates. That has not been possible until recently. Up until Android 12 or so (possibly later), I had to manually approve it any time F-Droid wanted to update an app I'd installed through F-Droid itself. Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.
whimsicalism 2y ago
e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced
- shaky-carrousel 2y ago
  Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  This court case was in Northern California.
stefan_ 2y ago
If I remember correctly the problem here is that in Googles version of an "open platform", they hide alternative app install behind fifteen menus of settings, restrict functionality (auto updates) and issue scary popups to users. These are deliberate choices that expose them. They also keep having to pull more anti-competitive moves with device manufacturers to keep control of Android.
throw653649 2y ago
I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit. Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon. I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations. Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1]. > Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
  - throw653649 2y ago
    > But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
    - immibis 2y ago
      It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it
lovethevoid 2y ago
Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well. Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%. > Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law. I think that's garbage, though, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
  - to11mtm 2y ago
    To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability. Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water... To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open. [0] - AARD Code, anyone? [1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements
Timshel 2y ago
It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like: - Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store) - Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store - Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store - Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.
- seany 2y ago
  - 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
  - kbolino 2y ago
    This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked by the Play Store version eventually.
    - rezonant 2y ago
      Generally no that doesn't happen. It may be very specific to Amazon though. Android uses signing keys to validate updates, and if the signing key doesn't match, it is impossible to install the update. My guess is Amazon (was?) using the same signing keys between the two stores. Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
      - kbolino 2y ago
akira2501 2y ago
> is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't? This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement. Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!" > so I guess that's fair. Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"
- Spivak 2y ago
  > Would that be more "fair?" Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction. Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
  - wiseowise 2y ago
    I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and Apple sued to hell until they comply.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    One is a Federal criminal case. The other is a Civil damages case. Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable. Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement. I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
  - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
    The core difference is Apple had a bench trial and Google let actual people decide in a jury trial, which is a lot harder to swindle with legal technicalities, and also much harder to overturn on appeal.
graeme 2y ago
It's because android is licensed to third party manufacturers and google changed the terms in a way contrary to law. Whereas Apple has had the same terms since the app store's launch and only used the app store on Apple devices. It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
ChoHag 2y ago
[dead]
xenadu02 2y ago
Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget to the end user very differently from a company that sells a piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end user. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I think we just have different priors. My belief is that, fundamentally, everything should be open. Users should have full control over their devices, and manufacturers should have no place in dictating anything about how they are used, what software can and can't run on them, etc. (Note that I'm not being anti-proprietary-software here; I don't think companies should be required to give away their source code if they don't want to.) I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow. I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
    - sgc 2y ago
      If some random app now wants me to use their random payment system, I will 100% just delete the app. Not a chance. I will and do install apps outside the app store, but I will not start using random payment systems. In other words, although I agree the amount developers pay is too high, for me and probably many other end users, the most valuable part of the Play store is the payment system.
scarface_74 2y ago
Yes because Google said there platform was “open” and then changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting beforehand. There is Supreme Court precedent for this
- NotPractical 2y ago
  This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement with Google that promised me source code for Android or the ability to sideload on my Android phone?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    They actually did promise you could get the source code for Android. From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010. https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/ > the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
    - RevEng 2y ago
      AOSP still exists, but it doesn't include most of the Google specific apps.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        And Google has continuously moved away from “open” - that’s just the point https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-android-open-source-project-by-deprecating-the-dialer-and-messaging-apps/ https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    For starters, it's the "O" in "AOSP": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Open-source_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope... So, 2007-present, that's when. Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.
heavyset_go 2y ago
They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.
Yeul 2y ago
The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kmeisthax 2y ago
Apple's business model is more amenable to current law's obsession with "intellectual property". If the government grants you a monopoly over a market, it's not a crime to exert monopoly power over that market. Apple's argument is "we can sell iOS however we want", and this works because the US has the best copyright laws money can buy. We need to fix them. Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
GeekyBear 2y ago
If you claim the platform you create is open, but use anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that the platform is closed. Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox. Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .
- lolinder 2y ago
  This is a terrible incentive structure to set up for platforms. I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens. How is that better for consumer choice?
  - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
    "I chose Android because it's open" But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you. It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > You were defrauded No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years. Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
      - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
        Your lack of understanding of how you were defrauded does not change that you were. This is exactly why the government sometimes steps in to fix things even when a company is considered popular by consumers. Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well. You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.
scotty79 2y ago
There's no F-Droid in Play Store
zmmmmm 2y ago
While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative payment provider but putting so many warnings in place that no user would ever do it. I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.
- jojobas 2y ago
  I'll take convoluted over outright impossible any day. I'll also take convolutedly unlockable bootloader over the vendor having access to my device even when I don't.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  It's not quite as convoluted as you describe, and I don't think Android ever changes that setting on your behalf. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous. IMO it's a good thing that they provide you with appropriate warnings.
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    It's only dangerous if Google has better judgment than the end user. This may be the case for the majority of users, but there's a significant subset for whom it's not the case. It'd be nice if there were a way for the end user to nudge Google to step aside.
    - blangk 2y ago
      There is : the end user allows side loading from their preferred app, such as f-droid. Am I missing something?
miki123211 2y ago
This isn't just about which store is a monopoly, but about what companies choose to do with that fact. Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences. The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.
Melatonic 2y ago
Is the title confusing or am I missing something ?
signal11 2y ago
The Epic v Google and Epic v Apple cases are a great showcase about how the law actually works in practice. Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2]. There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law. (Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.) [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-better-against-google-than-apple-in-court.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-google-destroyed-evidence-and-repeatedly-gave-false-info-to-court/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
EasyMark 2y ago
Two different cases in two different courts, it’s bound to happen. No judge has to abide by the decision of other judges except when it finally hits SCOTUS
nixosbestos 2y ago
The court having asinine double-standards when it comes to Apple? What's their HN account? edit: the replies basically just reinforcing the point, absolute :chefskiss:
hulitu 2y ago
> Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dathinab 2y ago
the decision is indeed contrary to previous decisions about apple Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading. Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision. --- IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary. Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it). Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.
jaredklewis 2y ago
This kind of low effort cynicism drives me crazy. When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes. Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.
danielktdoranie 2y ago
I came here looking for this comment and you didn’t disappoint

by tmtvl 2y ago

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third party app stores?

iLoveOncall 2y ago
In the EU only
whimsicalism 2y ago
they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
  - tencentshill 2y ago
    What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > percentage Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
    - atrus 2y ago
      > My phone Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
      - weikju 2y ago
        Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
    - ribosometronome 2y ago
      The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
      - tadfisher 2y ago
        What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > What is the downside for the consumer here? Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets. Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware. To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would: - Let me access functions like customizing firmware - Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem) - Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store. The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization. [1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
dialup_sounds 2y ago
There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up: In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
kelnos 2y ago
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
tiledjinn 2y ago
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.

xnx 2y ago

It is ridiculous. From Google's reply (https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-games-verdict-appeal/ https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-...): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading."

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > Initially, there wasn't a requirement to ship Android with an app store That's exactly the same case for iphones, Steve Jobs initial plan (and execution) was to install apps from Safari, the prototype of PWAs.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    True; except that the iPhone didn't allow apps from anywhere, at all. Consider damages, from a legal perspective. Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your proprietary 3D Printer? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your dishwasher? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for an ecosystem which is, and was, always closed? No, no, and (currently) no. You absolutely can claim damages though for building up an ecosystem that then turns into a bait-and-switch. Case: Android. Edit: Also, the commenter below is wrong. Steve Jobs talked about the 30% cut in the very introduction of the App Store. The 30% cut was also required on all in-app purchases, but by a legal agreement instead of an automated collection method.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      As someone mentioned, the app store started without a 30% cut so they also baited and switched. The only difference is that Apple won the case because Justice works like that. Different judges and it would have lost too.

cma 2y ago

> and where you can easily install apps through other means When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.

talldayo 2y ago
Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for the first time.
- cma 2y ago
  I believe the right thing I wanted to refer to is unattended app updates, enabled for third party sideloaded stores only with Android 12 or so. Maybe 12 added it back after it was taken away at some earlier point?
  - kokada 2y ago
    I am an Android user for a long time (since Android 2.2) and used pretty much every version from then on. Google devices (from Nexus to Android One devices and now Pixels) pretty much always allowed unattended updates for a long time (you may be right about Android 12, my memory is fuzzy here). And I never remember having scary warnings for sideloaded apps, sure, Android made it more difficult to install them (by having a permission per app instead a global permission, but I would say this was a very welcome change), but it was never convoluted or difficult. But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update. So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I think what people upthread are talking about is allowing third-party stores (like F-Droid) to do unattended updates. That has not been possible until recently. Up until Android 12 or so (possibly later), I had to manually approve it any time F-Droid wanted to update an app I'd installed through F-Droid itself. Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.

whimsicalism 2y ago

e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced

shaky-carrousel 2y ago
Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
lostmsu 2y ago
This court case was in Northern California.

stefan_ 2y ago

If I remember correctly the problem here is that in Googles version of an "open platform", they hide alternative app install behind fifteen menus of settings, restrict functionality (auto updates) and issue scary popups to users. These are deliberate choices that expose them. They also keep having to pull more anti-competitive moves with device manufacturers to keep control of Android.

throw653649 2y ago

I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit. Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon. I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations. Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1]. > Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
- throw653649 2y ago
  > But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
  - immibis 2y ago
    It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it

lovethevoid 2y ago

Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well. Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.

kelnos 2y ago
> Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%. > Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law. I think that's garbage, though, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability. Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water... To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open. [0] - AARD Code, anyone? [1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements

Timshel 2y ago

It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like: - Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store) - Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store - Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store - Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.

seany 2y ago
- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
- kbolino 2y ago
  This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked by the Play Store version eventually.
  - rezonant 2y ago
    Generally no that doesn't happen. It may be very specific to Amazon though. Android uses signing keys to validate updates, and if the signing key doesn't match, it is impossible to install the update. My guess is Amazon (was?) using the same signing keys between the two stores. Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
    - kbolino 2y ago

akira2501 2y ago

> is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't? This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement. Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!" > so I guess that's fair. Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"

Spivak 2y ago
> Would that be more "fair?" Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction. Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
- wiseowise 2y ago
  I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and Apple sued to hell until they comply.
- akira2501 2y ago
  One is a Federal criminal case. The other is a Civil damages case. Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable. Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
kelnos 2y ago
> They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement. I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
- ocdtrekkie 2y ago
  The core difference is Apple had a bench trial and Google let actual people decide in a jury trial, which is a lot harder to swindle with legal technicalities, and also much harder to overturn on appeal.

graeme 2y ago

It's because android is licensed to third party manufacturers and google changed the terms in a way contrary to law. Whereas Apple has had the same terms since the app store's launch and only used the app store on Apple devices. It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.

ChoHag 2y ago

[dead]

xenadu02 2y ago

Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget to the end user very differently from a company that sells a piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end user. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.

kelnos 2y ago
I think we just have different priors. My belief is that, fundamentally, everything should be open. Users should have full control over their devices, and manufacturers should have no place in dictating anything about how they are used, what software can and can't run on them, etc. (Note that I'm not being anti-proprietary-software here; I don't think companies should be required to give away their source code if they don't want to.) I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow. I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
  - sgc 2y ago
    If some random app now wants me to use their random payment system, I will 100% just delete the app. Not a chance. I will and do install apps outside the app store, but I will not start using random payment systems. In other words, although I agree the amount developers pay is too high, for me and probably many other end users, the most valuable part of the Play store is the payment system.

scarface_74 2y ago

Yes because Google said there platform was “open” and then changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting beforehand. There is Supreme Court precedent for this

NotPractical 2y ago
This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement with Google that promised me source code for Android or the ability to sideload on my Android phone?
- scarface_74 2y ago
  They actually did promise you could get the source code for Android. From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010. https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/ > the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
  - RevEng 2y ago
    AOSP still exists, but it doesn't include most of the Google specific apps.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      And Google has continuously moved away from “open” - that’s just the point https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-android-open-source-project-by-deprecating-the-dialer-and-messaging-apps/ https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  For starters, it's the "O" in "AOSP": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Open-source_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope... So, 2007-present, that's when. Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.

heavyset_go 2y ago

They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.

Yeul 2y ago

The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kmeisthax 2y ago

Apple's business model is more amenable to current law's obsession with "intellectual property". If the government grants you a monopoly over a market, it's not a crime to exert monopoly power over that market. Apple's argument is "we can sell iOS however we want", and this works because the US has the best copyright laws money can buy. We need to fix them. Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.

GeekyBear 2y ago

If you claim the platform you create is open, but use anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that the platform is closed. Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox. Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .

lolinder 2y ago
This is a terrible incentive structure to set up for platforms. I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens. How is that better for consumer choice?
- ocdtrekkie 2y ago
  "I chose Android because it's open" But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you. It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > You were defrauded No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years. Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
    - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
      Your lack of understanding of how you were defrauded does not change that you were. This is exactly why the government sometimes steps in to fix things even when a company is considered popular by consumers. Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well. You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.

scotty79 2y ago

There's no F-Droid in Play Store

zmmmmm 2y ago

While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative payment provider but putting so many warnings in place that no user would ever do it. I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.

jojobas 2y ago
I'll take convoluted over outright impossible any day. I'll also take convolutedly unlockable bootloader over the vendor having access to my device even when I don't.
NotPractical 2y ago
It's not quite as convoluted as you describe, and I don't think Android ever changes that setting on your behalf. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous. IMO it's a good thing that they provide you with appropriate warnings.
- rpdillon 2y ago
  It's only dangerous if Google has better judgment than the end user. This may be the case for the majority of users, but there's a significant subset for whom it's not the case. It'd be nice if there were a way for the end user to nudge Google to step aside.
  - blangk 2y ago
    There is : the end user allows side loading from their preferred app, such as f-droid. Am I missing something?

miki123211 2y ago

This isn't just about which store is a monopoly, but about what companies choose to do with that fact. Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences. The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.

Melatonic 2y ago

Is the title confusing or am I missing something ?

signal11 2y ago

The Epic v Google and Epic v Apple cases are a great showcase about how the law actually works in practice. Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2]. There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law. (Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.) [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-better-against-google-than-apple-in-court.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-google-destroyed-evidence-and-repeatedly-gave-false-info-to-court/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

EasyMark 2y ago

Two different cases in two different courts, it’s bound to happen. No judge has to abide by the decision of other judges except when it finally hits SCOTUS

nixosbestos 2y ago

The court having asinine double-standards when it comes to Apple? What's their HN account? edit: the replies basically just reinforcing the point, absolute :chefskiss:

hulitu 2y ago

> Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dathinab 2y ago

the decision is indeed contrary to previous decisions about apple Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading. Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision. --- IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary. Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it). Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.

jaredklewis 2y ago

This kind of low effort cynicism drives me crazy. When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes. Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.

danielktdoranie 2y ago

I came here looking for this comment and you didn’t disappoint