23 ms·

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

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
  - nerdix 2y ago
    Yes, Apple has been consistently bad. Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time. I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
    - to11mtm 2y ago
      > I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another. > The best outcome would be to force both to open up more. Agreed.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
      - nerdix 2y ago
        Not really. They didn't have to go the iPhone route. They could have gone the 1980s Microsoft route: a fully closed source, propriety OS that they license to hardware manufacturers. The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier. Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.

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
- nerdix 2y ago
  Yes, Apple has been consistently bad. Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time. I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
  - to11mtm 2y ago
    > I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another. > The best outcome would be to force both to open up more. Agreed.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
    - nerdix 2y ago
      Not really. They didn't have to go the iPhone route. They could have gone the 1980s Microsoft route: a fully closed source, propriety OS that they license to hardware manufacturers. The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier. Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.