4 ms·

> Epic may have lost its antitrust battle against Apple in the U.S., but it won its lawsuit against Google, which was found to have built an illegal monopoly in

> Epic may have lost its antitrust battle against Apple in the U.S., but it won its lawsuit against Google, which was found to have built an illegal monopoly in the Android market. Amazing. You can install third-party app stores on Android, just not via Google's own Play Store. Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even install third party browsers. Let alone third-party app stores. Or any apps outside Apple's App Store. The iOS case is far more egregious. It seems the US courts are heavily biased in favor of Apple.

benoau 1y ago
US courts haven't really begun dismantling this status quo, but there's quite a few things going on that challenge it: - DOJ antitrust case going to trial soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) - 2021 Epic injunction that Apple defied followed by 2025 Epic injunction that recently forced Apple to allow links to competing payment options: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possible_crime/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possi... - Open Markets Act from 2020 has some new life: https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-app-markets-act-resurrected-to-challenge-apples-app-store-control https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-a... - App Store Freedom Act from 2025: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209/text/ih https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209... - 2011 class action on excessive fees going to trial next year: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iphone-antitrust-litigation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iph... - 2025 class action on excessive fees: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publishers-association-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publish... - 2025 class action for monopolizing app distribution: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/Proton%20AG%20v%20Apple%2020250630.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/... - 2025 class action for doing a shit job of monopolizing app distribution: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-i...
- cubefox 1y ago
  Is any of these realistically expected to result in the possibility of installing third-party apps and app stores, similar to Android?
  - benoau 1y ago
    All of them challenge Apple having exclusive app distribution, except the Epic injunction and the class action accusing Apple of doing a shit job.
ZekeSulastin 1y ago
Wasn’t the legal difference that Apple never said you could whereas Google did then added roadblocks?
GeekyBear 1y ago
Walled gardens are not illegal under existing law. You have to change the law before walled gardens become illegal, as the EU did with the DSA. Nintendo's various platforms, Microsoft's XBox, and Sony's PlayStation have been perfectly legal walled gardens for decades. However, claiming to introduce an open platform and then using anticompetitive means to retain control of that "open" platform is plainly illegal under existing law, as Google found with Android and Microsoft found with Windows.
- cubefox 1y ago
  First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim". Moreover, what you are suggesting is that it is okay to do something bad if you say it's bad, but not to do something slightly bad if you say it's good. That's absurd. What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims".
  - GeekyBear 1y ago
    > First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim". They explicitly made the claim that Android was open on many occasions. Remember when a major Android selling point was that Android was "open source" before they started moving all the updated versions of the developer APIs into the Play Store? https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1815b9a42d https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1...
  - theshackleford 1y ago
    > What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims". It’s objectively not despite what you claim. Apple never promised you an alternative, you got exactly what you paid for. Google promised you an alternative and while you weren’t looking tried to strangle it in its crib. You need to look past your fan bias.
    - cubefox 1y ago
      Google didn't "promise" anything. > You need to look past your fan bias. That's funny, considering that you are arguing that Android is worse than iOS, despite iOS being far more anti-competitive.
bootsmann 1y ago
People complain about it here often, but the EU setting clear rules in the DMA is probably a significantly better way to ensure a level playing field instead of relying on judges and agencies to figure it out. Apple winning the case while Google lost theirs seems increasingly arbitrary.
Workaccount2 1y ago
The craziest part of this is: Apple wasn't a monopoly because they didn't share their platform with anyone The judge in the Google case said that Android couldn't be compared to iOS because iOS is only available to Apple products. So while I can kind of squint and see this, the obvious signal the court is sending is "If you don't want to be monopolistic, don't open your platform to anyone".
- amelius 1y ago
  Huh, third party developers are what made iOS big ...
  - sieabahlpark 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Hardware platform. Which is even stranger because Samsung, by far the largest Android phone distributor, ships their phones with the galaxy app store on them.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- anakaine 1y ago
  Do remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not the dictionary definition. From the point of defence of the dictionary definition, Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  Sure. If you claim something is open source and then make it impractical to use without closed source components you should get in trouble for that.
LoganDark 1y ago
> Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even install third party browsers. Let alone third-party app stores. Or any apps outside Apple's App Store. Apple did malicious compliance and only technically complied with the requirements in a specifically geo-restricted area (the EU) without allowing anyone else to benefit. (Although I think it was later ruled that they didn't actually manage to comply thanks to all the malice.)
ggreer 1y ago
Apple is what, less than 20% of phone sales? So it's hard to see how that constitutes a monopoly. And if banning 3rd party apps is enough for a lawsuit, then why doesn't that apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their game consoles? Why doesn't it apply to Amazon's Fire tablets, or Kindles, or Huawei phones, or Oculus headsets? All of those devices have similar restrictions. Unless customers are coerced or misled, or returns/refunds are difficult, I don't see the need for government intervention. Apple's software restrictions hurt the iPhone's market share. The same goes for charging high fees for app purchases. Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them. If an informed adult chooses a locked down platform because they prioritize other features, why should the government stop them? I can see an argument for requiring labeling (similar to warnings on cigarettes), but a total ban seems like overreach.
- realusername 1y ago
  > Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them Well no, there's only two operating system with very similar policies and pricing. If there's any competition there, it's not obvious where. The only pricing change ever made was made as a reaction of an antitrust lawsuit... Just that fact alone should be enough to raise some eyebrows.
  - ggreer 1y ago
    Similar policies and pricing? You can get Android phones for much cheaper than iPhones. And many smartphone manufacturers let you run whatever you want on their devices. The largest smartphone manufacturer in the world (Samsung) ships most of their phones with two app stores, and lets customers enable side loading with a few taps. If you're talking about policies and pricing for developers, then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo? Those are much more restrictive than anything in the smartphone world. Heck, even Steam takes a 30% cut.
    - realusername 1y ago
immibis 1y ago
AFAIK it was on the basis that Google pretends to be an open ecosystem, while Apple is pretty upfront about the fact they control everything you do with your device.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Why would the courts be biased in favor of one multi trillion dollar firm vs some other multi trillion dollar firm?
bsimpson 1y ago
From what I recall reading, it was a matter of market definition. They defined the Android app market to be all devices that run Android, and then said Google monopolized it; whereas the iOS market is just devices made by Apple. I don't agree with the outcome, but that's the twist of logic that allows the more open ecosystem to be the one being attacked as a monopoly.

benoau 1y ago

US courts haven't really begun dismantling this status quo, but there's quite a few things going on that challenge it: - DOJ antitrust case going to trial soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) - 2021 Epic injunction that Apple defied followed by 2025 Epic injunction that recently forced Apple to allow links to competing payment options: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possible_crime/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possi... - Open Markets Act from 2020 has some new life: https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-app-markets-act-resurrected-to-challenge-apples-app-store-control https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-a... - App Store Freedom Act from 2025: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209/text/ih https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209... - 2011 class action on excessive fees going to trial next year: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iphone-antitrust-litigation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iph... - 2025 class action on excessive fees: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publishers-association-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publish... - 2025 class action for monopolizing app distribution: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/Proton%20AG%20v%20Apple%2020250630.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/... - 2025 class action for doing a shit job of monopolizing app distribution: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-i...

cubefox 1y ago
Is any of these realistically expected to result in the possibility of installing third-party apps and app stores, similar to Android?
- benoau 1y ago
  All of them challenge Apple having exclusive app distribution, except the Epic injunction and the class action accusing Apple of doing a shit job.

ZekeSulastin 1y ago

Wasn’t the legal difference that Apple never said you could whereas Google did then added roadblocks?

GeekyBear 1y ago

Walled gardens are not illegal under existing law. You have to change the law before walled gardens become illegal, as the EU did with the DSA. Nintendo's various platforms, Microsoft's XBox, and Sony's PlayStation have been perfectly legal walled gardens for decades. However, claiming to introduce an open platform and then using anticompetitive means to retain control of that "open" platform is plainly illegal under existing law, as Google found with Android and Microsoft found with Windows.

cubefox 1y ago
First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim". Moreover, what you are suggesting is that it is okay to do something bad if you say it's bad, but not to do something slightly bad if you say it's good. That's absurd. What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims".
- GeekyBear 1y ago
  > First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim". They explicitly made the claim that Android was open on many occasions. Remember when a major Android selling point was that Android was "open source" before they started moving all the updated versions of the developer APIs into the Play Store? https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1815b9a42d https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1...
- theshackleford 1y ago
  > What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims". It’s objectively not despite what you claim. Apple never promised you an alternative, you got exactly what you paid for. Google promised you an alternative and while you weren’t looking tried to strangle it in its crib. You need to look past your fan bias.
  - cubefox 1y ago
    Google didn't "promise" anything. > You need to look past your fan bias. That's funny, considering that you are arguing that Android is worse than iOS, despite iOS being far more anti-competitive.

bootsmann 1y ago

People complain about it here often, but the EU setting clear rules in the DMA is probably a significantly better way to ensure a level playing field instead of relying on judges and agencies to figure it out. Apple winning the case while Google lost theirs seems increasingly arbitrary.

Workaccount2 1y ago

The craziest part of this is: Apple wasn't a monopoly because they didn't share their platform with anyone The judge in the Google case said that Android couldn't be compared to iOS because iOS is only available to Apple products. So while I can kind of squint and see this, the obvious signal the court is sending is "If you don't want to be monopolistic, don't open your platform to anyone".

amelius 1y ago
Huh, third party developers are what made iOS big ...
- sieabahlpark 1y ago
  [dead]
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Hardware platform. Which is even stranger because Samsung, by far the largest Android phone distributor, ships their phones with the galaxy app store on them.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
anakaine 1y ago
Do remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not the dictionary definition. From the point of defence of the dictionary definition, Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
mathiaspoint 1y ago
Sure. If you claim something is open source and then make it impractical to use without closed source components you should get in trouble for that.

LoganDark 1y ago

> Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even install third party browsers. Let alone third-party app stores. Or any apps outside Apple's App Store. Apple did malicious compliance and only technically complied with the requirements in a specifically geo-restricted area (the EU) without allowing anyone else to benefit. (Although I think it was later ruled that they didn't actually manage to comply thanks to all the malice.)

ggreer 1y ago

Apple is what, less than 20% of phone sales? So it's hard to see how that constitutes a monopoly. And if banning 3rd party apps is enough for a lawsuit, then why doesn't that apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their game consoles? Why doesn't it apply to Amazon's Fire tablets, or Kindles, or Huawei phones, or Oculus headsets? All of those devices have similar restrictions. Unless customers are coerced or misled, or returns/refunds are difficult, I don't see the need for government intervention. Apple's software restrictions hurt the iPhone's market share. The same goes for charging high fees for app purchases. Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them. If an informed adult chooses a locked down platform because they prioritize other features, why should the government stop them? I can see an argument for requiring labeling (similar to warnings on cigarettes), but a total ban seems like overreach.

realusername 1y ago
> Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them Well no, there's only two operating system with very similar policies and pricing. If there's any competition there, it's not obvious where. The only pricing change ever made was made as a reaction of an antitrust lawsuit... Just that fact alone should be enough to raise some eyebrows.
- ggreer 1y ago
  Similar policies and pricing? You can get Android phones for much cheaper than iPhones. And many smartphone manufacturers let you run whatever you want on their devices. The largest smartphone manufacturer in the world (Samsung) ships most of their phones with two app stores, and lets customers enable side loading with a few taps. If you're talking about policies and pricing for developers, then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo? Those are much more restrictive than anything in the smartphone world. Heck, even Steam takes a 30% cut.
  - realusername 1y ago

immibis 1y ago

AFAIK it was on the basis that Google pretends to be an open ecosystem, while Apple is pretty upfront about the fact they control everything you do with your device.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Why would the courts be biased in favor of one multi trillion dollar firm vs some other multi trillion dollar firm?

bsimpson 1y ago

From what I recall reading, it was a matter of market definition. They defined the Android app market to be all devices that run Android, and then said Google monopolized it; whereas the iOS market is just devices made by Apple. I don't agree with the outcome, but that's the twist of logic that allows the more open ecosystem to be the one being attacked as a monopoly.