348
US judge orders Google to open app store to competitors
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
348 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58685 readers
4006 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I hate Google as much as anybody else, but that Google has been ordered to open up when they already allow side loading, and Apple is apparently all good, is all you need to know this whole system is a joke.
Google is big enough to be considered a monopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Play Store is technically a separate service / business which enjoys unfair advantage of being installed by default. I think this approach might be good because it’s better for user experience (unlike EU web browser thing for example) and has a good shot at postiviely affecting power balance between app developers and platform owner.
I’m curious how this will play out. Apple should be next obviously.
Apple was first. And the courts ruled it no problem.
I meant "next big corpo beaten into submission by regulators". I don't think Epic gave up on them yet.
I wouldn't say Google has been "beaten into submission". They still interweave their crap services into every Android phone with no ability to remove or disable them, couple their apps with an intrusive, privacy violating, system degrading backend with special rules for its own apps versus everybody else... even force the default system web browser to be an unremovable Chrome installation, and not even a peep from regulators that any of this might be anti-competitive.
No company has been properly beaten into submission since Ma Bell. Even the big Microsoft browser decision in the 90s turned out to be a joke - they're right back to doing the same thing with impunity.
Even if things go well it will be one thing at a time probably. This news doesn’t sound big because Google is so big but for businesses dependent on Google infrastructure this is a major win, no?
My perspective might be skewed since I live in EU and we mostly won right to our data and privacy.
I appreciate you guys fighting the good fight.
At least SOMEONE'S on it.
It's because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.
You can't have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed, or notifications won't work.
The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.
Apple doesn't do this. Yes, Apple's system is more locked down than Google's (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is. Apple has not forced Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, Sony, etc to do anything. They are only doing things of their own accord, on their own devices.
What Apple is doing is the same as what the games consoles do. You buy a Sony console, it has Sony software, Sony's storefront, Sony-sanctioned games. It's an ecosystem they're putting on their own product, as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google's ecosystem, because Google knows they have no realistic alternative. That's why one is abuse of market dominance and the other isn't.
This is the clearest and most sensible explanation of the situation, but I'm still not sure what's meant by "opening the app store". The reality is apps can be sideloaded and distributed freely on Android, even unrooted. Sure, Google requires OEMs to push Google services and tracking, and that's evil and horrible and nasty, but do they actually force that onto app developers as well?
Perhaps they mean allowing android OEMs to ship with the play store without having to agree to all the other Google requirements.
Edit: Sorry! I misread your comment at first. Yeah, now that you say that, that makes the most sense.
But from the standpoint of anti-competitivity and Android vs iOS with Apple...
One's behavior is denying access to their app store without agreeing to a set of device restrictions, but everything on the app store is available without the app store at developer discretion.
The other is an app store which MUST be installed, and is in fact the ONLY way to get software for the device.
One is CLEARLY more anti-competitive than the other, and yet the one that's LESS problematic is the one that gets court action. It's a joke.
And you can't have a device with the Apple Store at all.
You can't claim that Google is more anti-competitive because they try to control how others use their OS when Apple doesn't even let anyone else do that, and they still maintain a near-majority market-share in the US.
Damn Google, and their anti-competitive letting-competitors-use-their-software!
Come on, man, my comment isn't that long. Just read it.
Come on, man, my comment isn't that long. Just read it.
Repeating my own comment back to me in a way that doesn't even make sense doesn't make you witty, it makes you look like someone who doesn't know how to interract with people like an adult.
You never addressed my comment at all. Apple isn't abusing their dominant market position by putting what they want on their own phones.
Google is abusing their market position by forcing other OEMs to do what Google wants, knowing they have no other choice.
Do you understand now?
If you want Apple to be punished, write some new laws, because they aren't breaking the one Google is.
Writing a comment that conveys absolutely nothing doesn't make you witty, it makes you look like you have nothing to say to defend your position. Repeating it back is an attempt to illustrate that to you.
I clearly did. You, on the other hand, did not address my response.
They're abusing their market position by disallowing any software that's not distributed according to Apple's demands and forcing them to pay their exorbitant Apple tax for the great honor of distributing software on their platform. This unnecessarily drives up the costs for consumers and developers in order to further line Apple's pockets.
I honestly don't know any way to explain this other than the way I already have: You can't call Google anti-competitive for trying to control the way they deal with alternative app stores, and then claim Apple does nothing wrong when they don't even allow other app stores in the first place? Like, I just don't understand how that computes in your brain...
You literally can't have a device at all with the Apple Store...
The fact that Google is getting punished and Apple is not is not just hypocritical but also motivates other businesses to emulate Apple's "walled garden" ideology.
They're breaking the exact same ones, in regards to how software is distributed in their ecosystem.
Do you understand now?
I really don't know how you aren't grasping this.
Apple isn't forcing anybody to do anything, because they make their own device. (iPhones are made by Apple).
Google is forcing OEMs to do all sorts of things, because they have no choice but to use Android/the play store. (Other phones, e.g. Samsung's Galaxy S series, aren't made by Google).
Do you understand? I'm not sure I can make this any more simple. What's going on in your head that's not letting you understand this?
I really don't know how you aren't grasping this.
They are, and I've already explained how they are, several times. Come on, man, my comment isn't that long. Just read it.
They have no choice because Apple does not make iOS/Apple Store available to anyone else...
If Google did what Apple did (or did not in this case), those other OEMs would have zero choices and wouldn't even exist...
Google is creating competition for themselves, where Apple refuses to even engage.
Do you understand? I'm not sure I can make this any more simple. What's going on in your head that's not letting you understand this?
And you were wrong.
People and companies are not compelled to open source their software. Apple doesn't have to open source iOS or offer it on other devices if they don't want to. Same goes for Sony/Xbox/Nintendo.
If I code a game, it's not illegal for me to keep the source code to myself.
No, if Google had done what Apple did, nobody would've flocked to Android in the first place, and we'd have more competition. Do you think there were no phone makers before Android or something?
It's incredible how you still don't get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
Apple. Is. Not. Imposing. Terms. On. Phonemakers.
Google is. Because their dominant market position allows them to.
If Google did this only for their own Pixel line, it would be fine.
I'm not, you just don't like it.
No one is saying they are, but when one does, and the other doesn't, the former hands themselves a shitton of competition. They become more competitive. They created a whole market of competition for themselves. All they've done is put restrictions on how people use their software they've licensed other OEMs to use. Again, not saying these restrictions aren't anti-competitive, but Apple does none of this, so how can Google be called anti-competitive while Apple is not?
We're not discussing "before Android". We're discussing today. If Apple opens their OS to other OEMs, or allows other developers to publish on iOS, I'll take back everything, but they've made it very clear they have zero intention of doing any of those things.
They. Can't. Impose. Terms. For. Things. They. Don't. Allow. To. Exist. In. The. First. Place.
You can't claim one is being anti-competitive for imposing terms on a service they created and open-sourced while the other doesn't even allow for a service to exist to impose them on. That goes for iOS and it goes for alternative app stores.
Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores or alternative hardware because their dominant market position allows them to. A significantly larger market when we're talking about hardware...
It's incredible how you still don't get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
You're clearly unable to comprehend what I'm telling you so let's call it a day. Bye.
It's not abusing your market position to not open source your own software. If I make a game, I don't have to let people have the source code. How don't you understand this?
I've explained many times why Google's options are abusive of their market position and Apple's aren't. You're just unable to understand, it's like talking to a brick wall.
There’s that nuance again. Seems to not be very popular around here. Good point though. Well said.
Apple isn't on third party hardware.
They aren't controlling access to software on other manufacturers devices like Google is.
That's not actually true though.
Android is open source and many devices, mostly Chinese products, launch with custom Android builds completely free of Google services. This is not a Google constraint - manufacturers CHOOSE to use Android builds that use Google's services. Creating your own build simply stops you from integrating Google's services into the OS, which is actually a PLUS if you ask me.
Even if they WERE requiring it, that would have nothing to do with end user store front installation, which is already something you can do, as shown by the 2 non-Google app stores I have installed on my phone.
Again... I'm not defending Google as some kind of good company here. I'm simply stating there is no way to make an anti-competitivity argument against Google in mobile that doesn't apply at least as much to Apple. This is a nonsensical double-standard.
Because of their market dominance. That's what antitrust laws are about.
The fact that it's not just their own hardware completely changes the legal arguments in play.
https://source.android.com/license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
"At its core, the operating system is known as the Android Open Source Project (AOSP)[5] and is free and open-source software (FOSS) primarily licensed under the Apache License. However, most devices run on the proprietary Android version developed by Google, which ships with additional proprietary closed-source software pre-installed,[6] most notably Google Mobile Services (GMS),[7] which includes core apps such as Google Chrome, the digital distribution platform Google Play, and the associated Google Play Services development platform. Firebase Cloud Messaging is used for push notifications. While AOSP is free, the "Android" name and logo are trademarks of Google, which imposes standards to restrict the use of Android branding by "uncertified" devices outside their ecosystem.[8][9]"
Android itself DOES NOT require ANY concessions of ANY kind to Google.
Android itself DOES NOT require ANY concessions of ANY kind to Google. Maybe "opening the app store" means making Google's services available without requiring those concessions to Google, in which case, that both makes sense and is a great idea.
So, Google allows other OEMs to use their OS and tries to control how it's used = anti-competitive.
Apple doesn't let anyone else use their OS = totally fine?
Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers' rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They're using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.
You're dictating the ToU of your software. ~~They have zero control over others' hardware.~~
No one is arguing that Google isn't anti-competitive, just that Apple is also anti-competitive, in a similar but even worse manner because its not even available to others...
That's incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That's the monopoly they're abusing, and that's what Epic is suing for.
What are the hardware requirements?
One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google's arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.
This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That's textbook anticompetitive.
It's not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.
I honestly don't understand anything you said. There's a refresh rate requirement for Android? And the refresh rate requirement made it convoluted for people to enable the Play Store?
The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There's a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That's not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.
Is there? I've seen lots of Android e-readers that are way less. Maybe just because they're Chinese and don't give a shit. Presumably that requirement is to ensure a positive experience for Android users. Android is obviously not intended to be used for e-readers.
Regardless, a limitation of your OS is absolutely not in any way more anti-competitive than not distributing an OS at all. I feel like this is pretty straightforward...
You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It's why they're so niche and only made by Chinese companies.
It's not in any way a limitation of the OS. It's a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.
And again, your core concept isn't just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that "openness" to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your "partners" using that product, especially when you're also one of them. That's anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being "open" while completely dictating the entire market.
Requiring a specific refresh rate for the OS to be installed isn't "in any way" a limitation of the OS? Not sure how you arrived at that.
No, I think you just don't understand that I am not having a legal discussion. I am having a rational discussion. If the law is irrational, then it is fucked and needs to be updated. Imposing rules that apply to businesses that are more competitive by sharing their IP (with caveats), then going back and saying that other businesses that operate in essentially the exact same space, but refuse to share any IP (anti-competitive), are exempt from such regulations, is fucked.
Neither of them are okay, and both should be regulated more heavily, but the fact that the more competitive one faces more penalties is fucked and just further enforces Apple's "walled garden" ideology, as well as encouraging other businesses to operate similarly.
It has nothing to do with the OS. It's for the play store. But again, a limitation of the OS would be something that the OS can't do, not the OS just refusing to allow hardware for business reasons.
Your opinion on rational is just as flawed. People should be able to make their own products. It's specifically pretending to be open to form a standard that multiple independent companies join in on, then unilaterally controlling that standard to make decisions for the entire market that's abusive.
There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware. Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment. It's not what a monopoly is. Controlling the behavior of hundreds of competing products is a monopoly.
Of course they should. You're intentionally missing the point. They should not be allowed to make their products anti-competitive and anti-consumer by preventing the user from installing the software they want to use, in order to funnel more money into their pockets and essentially extorting it from businesses that want to write software for its' customers with exorbitant fees.
And they shouldn't be allowed to do that either. And especially not if they become one of the top 5 wealthiest companies on the face of the Earth in the process.
And absolutely nothing about allowing users to install whatever software they want without paying extortionate and exorbitant fees to Apple impedes that strength.
Fucking el oh ol. There's simply no world where Google is a monopoly and Apple isn't, and the insinuation of such can only be described as fanboyism.
Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive. You can't just re-define words to mean something that's the exact opposite of what they are. The locked down system of Apple and consoles is their biggest value add. It's not "something I tolerate to buy an iPhone". It's why I buy an iPhone. They make so much money because their control of their own product makes it better. There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on your own hardware. It's literally impossible.
Google is a monopoly because they are controlling the behavior of competitors with their market position. That is always a monopoly. Controlling your own product never is.
That entirely depends on what part of "your systems" you're controlling. When you control how users of "your systems" can interact with other businesses, it absolutely is. When you say "if you want to create software that runs on our hardware, you have to adhere to all of our guidelines, no matter how absurd, and pay us 30% of any revenue received through this software" that's anticompetitive...
LOOOOOOOLOLOL okay so you're not just a fanboy, you're a shill!
Good talk. Bye bye now.
Google has also made unwelcome moves recently indicating they might crack down on sodeloaded app stores. So I'm glad this ruling happened.