Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.

      • phx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        94
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.

        At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the “you can’t buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut” which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          43
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, the Kindle app pretty blatantly tells you why they removed in-app purchases.

            • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s why we are surprised. But given this went through, maybe they could go for it again who knows.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              And it’s two companies fighting, how far did the anti monopoly pushes against apple and google get before Epic took them up because they were a profitable venture?

        • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah but they also have more rights than the consumer, rather than the other way about lol

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        “Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility into iFreespace and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time as per the iNflanational iFukU-nion that is a slight inconvenience for anyone not part of the of the 23.000.001 iToUrPPs living aboard the ilolTax Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23”

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      110
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          72
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.

          Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.

          • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Apple wouldn’t need to have secret deals. They’re running a walled garden over there. You can’t side load, and you can’t run payments through the app without Apple’s approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn’t a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.

            The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don’t have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not “theirs”, even if they’ve increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time.

            The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don’t approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device).

            But they can’t outright control anything.

            Which is where the deals come in. They’re making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.

            It’s anti-competitive, because to spite Google’s efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn’t.

        • Album@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          By enforcing a rule that says apps on the app store cannot have an external paid app store. So that’s why you download FN on sideload instead of the store.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No I think Google tried to tell Epic they couldn’t have their own processing for in-app purchases. That’s what Epic sued over.

          • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.

            • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.

              • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                That’s exactly what sunk Google’s case though. They’re inconsistent. Had they most likely shown they’re consistent to other apps they could have been more likely to get a jury on their side (like in the case with Apple).

            • bassomitron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Google and Apple both banned Fortnite from their respective app stores and that’s what caused Epic to sue both of them in the first place.

              • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                It’s more that Epic added their own payment system to the app (and offered, IIRC, a roughly 30% decrease in Vbucks price for people who opted to use it instead), Google and Apple both responded by removing the app, and then Epic sued them both and even aired a special presentation in Fortnite. All in the same day. Epic intentionally did this.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.

          Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can’t even be on the play store. So for an ordinary user you feel like you are hacking the phone. So naturally there aren’t many alternatives. The only one that lasted is F-Droid, but it seems to be only used by advanced users who want to run open source software.

          So simply, theoretically they should be able to do whatever they want practically everyone has to stick to play store.

          Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them (and they of course charge 30%). This probably would still be ok, but then certain vendors don’t need to follow the same rules.

                • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I believe that is the crux of it. And apparently part of the trial exposed that some big players have special deals such that don’t have to pay those in-app purchase commissions, or at least have a smaller commission. And that’s what makes it an abuse of their market position.

    • Aatube@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

        • Aatube@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They obviously aren’t forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That’s what’s getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing.

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 months ago

      On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google’s Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university’s online studies.

      • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it’ll let you use it.

      • Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But that won’t necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn’t need to change how their apps function because of this.

        • bigFab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I really hope you’r wrong on that. Anyways, it’s a pleasure to see Google bleeding.

    • Rose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.”

      Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including:

      1. Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely

      2. Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges

      3. Google is dominant

      4. Google shares its Play profits with its competitors

      “When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim.

      The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all.

      For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way.

      But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.”

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty “persuasive” about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone.

      • Voyajer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?

        • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Are those all on the phone by default?

          Edit: I didn’t ask if some of them are installed by default, I asked if ALL of them are installed by default.

          • icedterminal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            11 months ago

            I can’t speak for the others, but the Samsung Galaxy Store does come pre-installed. However, Google paid Samsung for the Play Store to be the default action for app installs. So you get both stores and can pick which one you want.

            • Rose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s just two options from two big players who cooperate, and only on some devices.

            • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The Samsung galaxy store comes pre-installed on Samsung phones, I haven’t heard of it being pre-installed on non-samsung phones.

            • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              So what you’re saying is that two of them are installed by default on some phones, but not all of them? Because the comment they replied to was talking about app stores being installed by default, so I’m asking if all those app stores are all installed by default. Because it seems like only some of them sometimes get installed by default on some phones.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I don’t know what’s on every phone. But I can confirm those 2 are defaults on some devices through personal experience.

                And there are also devices without the Play store by default. Amazon products are probably the best example, but they’re not the only ones.

                Don’t get me wrong - Google does some terrible shit. But they’re better than pretty much every other major software company on this issue. All the major game consoles and Apple require the use of their stores exclusively. Microsoft requires the Microsoft store to be installed on any modern Windows machine.

                Yeah - the Play Store is the de-facto default and by far the most successful on the platform. And yeah - Google likes it that way and encourages it. But so does everyone else. The difference is that Google is the best actor in this area.

                Google allows sideloading. They allow other storefronts. They allow other stores to be installed by default by manufacturers. They allow manufacturers to not include the Play Store. And they allow the removal/disabling of the Play Store by users.

            • Rose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The jury settled on the relevant geographic market being “worldwide excluding China”.

    • OscarRobin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Didn’t Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.

    Edit: for future reference, Verge answers this very question here https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly

    • bleuthoot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      90
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      EDIT: Added source from where I read it.

      From some other comment I read, it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google’s stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.

      This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:

      The “this doesn’t make sense” crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store… but we can can all guess how well that would have went… not well. So the open source route makes sense.

      Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn’t control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

      If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they’d have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn’t do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I’m not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn’t be a surprise.

      Source

      There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can’t find it anymore.

      • Aasikki@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn’t seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can’t sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.

          Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.

          I’ve heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?

          I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Lawyers are bad, but I’m starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the ‘wrong’ judge assigned to your case and you’re done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.

        • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.

      • Phrodo_00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        True, but that’s more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn’t have any relation. As far as epic goes, they’re only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it’s allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)

    • stewsters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it when they are so much more restrictive.

      Can this ruling be used in the future against Apple?

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

      From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The difference is that Apple is so vertically integrated, they can say that the existence of Android as an option negates any monopoly they might have on apps. Yes it’s stupid.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.

      Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.

  • candle_lighter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn’t even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.

    Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Welcome to law, Apple is less monopolistic than Google legally simply because Apple built a better monopoly, by denying competition in the first place.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store.

        Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html

        It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.

        • bigFab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.

          • yamanii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?

      • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah and honestly Im fine with courts opening up the platforms more to make at ths point, but the issue is that apple got the win. People cite incentives and back doors dealings on googles end, but apple doesnt need to they just control everything by default no questions asked.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.

    Unlike Apple, Google allows people to download apps onto phones running its Android operating system without going through its official app store, but the company strikes deals with phone manufacturers to favor Google’s official app store.

    So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.

    Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??

    The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.

    • Killer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Apple: this is our system and we’ve always been upfront about it. We’re dictators of our ecosystem. You can’t compel us to open up. Yes there’s less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we’ve always made that clear to everybody. Forcing us to open up our system is like forcing Nintendo to allow Microsoft games on the Switch, bypassing paying Nintendo anything.

      The courts say fair enough, that’s correct.

      Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don’t. We’re using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they’re big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice than to comply.

      The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your dominant market position.

      You’re looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That’s not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.

    • Aatube@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

      • Nate@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        The thing here is that you don’t have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don’t even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I’m sure Huawei isn’t using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while “designed to keep apps down”, is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn’t offered that deal they’re still free to make deals with other app stores.

        Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you’re unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple’s billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.

        I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I’m not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they’ve specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn’t and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Google made back room deals with other development firms to help suppress the use of other app stores.

          That’s the issue here. The collusion aspect.

          It’s very different than Apple.

        • Aatube@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          While I agree, it seems like antitrust lawsuits gain a lot more ground if the defendant was paying people to switch from competitors which is what got Google here.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      And they probably won’t.

      iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.

    • yesdogishere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      i hope this one also smashes Apple’s business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.

      • T4UTV1S@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that…

        It’s not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.

  • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it’s worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.

    The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively “smart”. Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier’s store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.

    Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.

    Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon’s tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.

    That said I do think it’s a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yup. I was part of Verizon’s app development program and it was a fucking joke. Even if the dev tools and build chain wasn’t a complete mess, and even if the dev license wasn’t expensive, and even if it wasn’t almost impossible to even get test hardware… Even if you managed to build something more useful than snake, you’d still have to wait months and months and months for Verizon to sign your apps and then months more before they’d be available on any handset. I’m legitimately not sure it was even possible for a small dev to get anything approved.

      Open app stores were and still are amazing. I get that people want even more freedom, but coming from the trauma of feature phone development, I find it hard to get upset about this, especially considering Android makes it dead simple to sideload.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Thanks, ChatGPT.

          I don’t think so

          Sure smells like it.

          Nobody was asking for a history lesson of the past that doesn’t draw any real conclusion to the current situation, at the end of the comment.

        • unexpectedteapot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.

            • StuffYouFear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I thought it was a good read and reminded me of the garbage I did at one time live through involving non-iphones

              Sorry people are being mean on the internet, they may not be aware they dont have to consume all information that is posted in front of them.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well thats just mean for no particular reason.

              Your comment was a nonsensical history lesson, and didn’t serve the current conversation of the topic being discussed.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nah, call them as you see them. No need to F around when it comes to people polluting the Internet.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.

            Agree. Smells like a ChatGPT flavored comment.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That’s why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?

    Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)

    Sorry if it’s a stupid question.

  • localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I run e/OS, I don’t have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.

    Epic won this case against google…

    Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.

    I’m not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that’s BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.

    • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Seriously this is crazy. Apple somehow winning is way worse as there is simply no way to install third party apps on IOS. Android makes the risks clear but it’s still at least possible if you click install anyway.

      In terms of being a monopoly, in the US ios has more market share anyway. Google’s lawyers must have really made some big mistake.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      No the point. Most users won’t install anything not on the app store.

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yea, but how is that a monopoly? There is even a fullon android AppStore from Amazon

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t like the notion that something having majority market share makes it a monopoly. The definition of monopoly, at least, as understood by me implies control of supply, not just having a higher demand.

  • odium@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android

    I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Fdroid better stay as FOSS and privacy focused. I don’t want to see Spotify or some subscription brand bullshit up there.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m aware of what foss means, it’s why I out an “and” after it given fdroid has a separate focus on privacy.

          Subscribe to what you like I’d would prefer if fdroid remained as a pillar of security and openness and didn’t welcome in a load corpo cunts.

          • pirat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            IIRC, no one stops anyone from making their own repository that people can add to their F-Droid client. But I agree that the native F-Droid repo should stay (more or less) as it is.

        • 768@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Artificial media scarcity subscription models are much harder to implement with licenses like AGPL, but personal data crawlers still pose tremendous risks, especially in the future of technology.

      • arthurpizza@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t believe the F-Droid will ever be implementing any kind of payment processing through the app store.