10 ms·

It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it worse." Both Google and Apple's platf

• zamadatix 2y ago
  I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • mvdtnz 2y ago
    Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge legally-enforced advantage.
    • Electricniko 2y ago
      I liked the absurdity of one of the top comments on the Verge article, which was that under the requirements of this ruling, Apple could open up an app store for Android and Google would be forced to put it on their Play Store.
      • freedomben 2y ago
        Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular web browser on the Apple app store
        • SllX 2y ago
          Chrome is on there and people still use it. It’s just not using Blink. Web browser ≠ rendering engine.
          • nijave 2y ago
            Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine? I would say not.
            • SllX 2y ago
              Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? I would say not. And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
              • Dylan16807 2y ago
                > Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? Is that supposed to be a counterargument? If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser. If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser. Both of these can easily be true at the same time. > And it has a rendering engine Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.
                • SllX 2y ago
                  >>> Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine? >> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? > Is that supposed to be a counterargument? Only as much as what I was responding to was an argument. > If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser. Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use. > Which is replacing the one that was removed. “Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones. The Chrome that is in the App Store now is one that Google chose to ship and call Chrome. People like and use it too. I think we can agree that WebKit is being subbed in over Google’s preferred choice of rendering engines though.
    • rezonant 2y ago
      A meaningless advantage. Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS. The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought. But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now! But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.
• dnissley 2y ago
  Sure, but I would argue that Google's platform was open enough in that it was possible to download and install alternative app stores. They shouldn't need to do most of the things that are being requested here, like distribute play store apps in those alternate stores or change their requirements about what payment systems are used in apps downloaded through their app store. For the most part I think they should still be able to do what they want to do in their own app store, just like Apple.
  • lancesells 2y ago
    I think the difference is Google's platform is also on other manufacturers devices? If Android only existed on Pixel devices it could be different.
    • nerdix 2y ago
      Why should that matter? If anything, shouldn't that mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly on Android apps in the way that Apple has on iOS apps because the device manufacturer can pre-install their own store on their devices? Like Galaxy Store on Samsung devices
      • ethbr1 2y ago
        It matters because Google got to the current state (Play Store installed on more devices than it would have been) through anti-competitive behavior. Ergo, the redress isn't to say "Keep the ill gotten gains, but don't do it any more" -- it's to attempt to return things to the competitive playing field that might have existed if Google hadn't broken the law. From that perspective, forcing them to use their market share to distribute alternatives makes sense.
• ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with. Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.
  • a_wild_dandan 2y ago
    Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
    • onlypassingthru 2y ago
      Contradictory rulings are fodder for Supreme Court dockets.
    • tiledjinn 2y ago
      Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments. So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
    • benoau 2y ago
      In the coming weeks or months the judge in the Epic case will decide if gacha games can link directly to their own payments without Apple, that threatens 70% of spending on the App Store in Apple's worst-case scenario (per the Epic case it was revealed 10% of users do 70% of spending, in such games). Minus the tens of billions in annual fees on gacha games, and with litigation and regulation around the world I think they will just abandon their most contentious restrictions. On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year. On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition. I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice_Online_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
• ssl-3 2y ago
  It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here. In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot). Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of. (Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)
  • kelnos 2y ago
    Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.
    • mvdtnz 2y ago
      They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
      • reissbaker 2y ago
        Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open. In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole. Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
        • 2y ago
• kelnos 2y ago
  Sure, but I think it's fair to say "why are you regulating us significantly more than you are regulating our similar competitor?" Android is already more open than iOS; you can already install third-party app stores, where the only hoop you have to jump is agreeing to a warning about installing things from "unknown sources". But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor does it give access to the full Play Store catalog to third-party app stores. Frankly I'd never even thought of the latter thing as something I or anyone would want, but sure, ok, make them do that. Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their App Store monopoly (in the US at least), a situation that is even more locked down than Android's has ever been. I absolutely agree that Apple's platform needs to be opened up too. And while I'm often not sympathetic toward Google on a lot of things, I can absolutely be sympathetic toward them feeling like they are being treated vastly unequally by the law.
  • rezonant 2y ago
    It does make sense for Amazon's app store, as it's a general app store. Makes way less sense for Epic and other gaming/company focused storefronts.
  • tsimionescu 2y ago
    It's simple. There exists a market for app stores on Android, there doesn't exist such a market on iOS. So, Apple can't be said to have a monopoly position in the iOS app distribution market, because, again, such a market doesn't exist, and there is no general obligation to create one (there is a different discussion about the app market, which Epic was attacking and which failed for now). But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• saghm 2y ago
  The issue is that the precedent they point to was categorically ruled _not_ an illegal monopoly in a similar court case. I don't disagree that there should be more competition in for platforms, but I also can recognize that the legally binding opinion on that disagrees with mine.
  • tiledjinn 2y ago
    Which case is that? Because that's not how the Apple ruling went.
    • saghm 2y ago
      According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple, the ruling definitively stated that Apple does not need to add third party app stores to its platform, and the appeal upheld that ruling (with the Supreme Court declining to hear further appeals, meaning the case is finished). The only change Apple had to make is supporting third-party payment platforms. > Judge Rogers issued her first ruling on September 10, 2021, which was considered a split decision by law professor Mark Lemley.[63] Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut and Apple's prohibition against third-party marketplaces on the iOS environment.[64] Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts. > ... > The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court.[79] Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023.[80][81] Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.[82] > On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case. Given that the claim I was responding to implied that it was foolish of Google to cite Apple due to them being a monopoly, can you elaborate on why you think this ruling somehow was an obviously bad idea for them to argue as a precedent? To repeat myself from before, I'm _not_ expressing personal opinion about whether iOS and Android should be allowed to operate the way they do, but asserting that the court ruling does in fact state that the current way Apple handles third-party app stores is legal.
• colonelpopcorn 2y ago
  But it is. For the savvy user you can run whatever you want on an android device.
  • tsimionescu 2y ago
    Which is exactly why the Google case succeeded: Google does have competing app stores, and they are crushing them using anti-competitive practices.
• eru 2y ago
  Two 'monopolies' in app stores aren't a monopoly. They are at most a duopoly..
  • red1reaper 2y ago
    Not really because they are different monopolies. The IOS apps and Android apps are different markets
    • samatman 2y ago
      The reductio ad absurdum of this style of argument would hold that every retailer is a monopoly, because once you walk into the store, you can only buy things from them.
      • BlueTemplar 2y ago
        This is more like renting a room in a store than walking into one.
• bugtodiffer 2y ago
  I really do not see how Android should be opened up more. I can install 3 different app stores in 3 minutes.
  • forty 2y ago
    They could preinstall a bunch of competitors and you'd choose the ones you keep at first startup (like Microsoft had to do with browser). This would allow fairer competition for competing stores. Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.
    • bugtodiffer 2y ago
      Sadly, most users should have Play Store and nothing else IMO. I respect the Play security team. What I could see: make Play Store and Play Services uninstallable like any other app.
      • mdwrigh2 2y ago
        You can disable them, which is functionally uninstalling. Actually being able to uninstall them isn't technically possible because their base images live on a read-only partition so they survive factory reset (which erases all RW partitions). The OS could _pretend_ they're uninstalled, but that seems strictly worse than the existing presentation which more accurately reflects reality.
        • BlueTemplar 2y ago
          Not exactly the same situation, but I keep wondering : is deleting personal data only "pretending", since most of it could potentially be restored for quite some time (especially on transistor storage) ?
• raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I believe it is too late for that and we are stuck with bad mobile OS. Additional stores don't solve the problem of hardware not being open at all. People have accepted that either manufacturer or mobile provider owns their phone. You do not have administrative rights and some apps even disallow being run in a more free environment.
• space_oddity 2y ago
  Both Google and Apple have built walled gardens with their app stores
• myko 2y ago
  > Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition. The point is that Google is already open
• pdntspa 2y ago
  Android is a hell of a lot closer to 'open' than iOS