Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
Great! Now do Apple
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
They have a 99% market share on iPhone though. Google has less on Android.
Who has the other 1% on iPhone?
Jailbroken I assume
…in the US
Which is all the US courts would be looking at.
deleted by creator
No they don’t.
They absolutely do. This case would only look at US market share, they don’t care about anywhere else. And why would they? Imagine a company with 10% US market share and 90% worldwide market share, would you expect US courts to deem that a monopoly?
In the US, market share of Apple is between 50-60% while Android is between 40-50%, depending on the source. Worldwide is more in favour of Android, but this is a US lawsuit.
“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”
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
And consoles.
It’s not an apples to apples comparable situation. Pun intended!
Why? Just don’t buy apple.
That isn’t really relevant when it comes to holding them to a different legal standard.
And if you don’t own apple products, why would you care?
Exactly. The locked down nature is part of the Apple experience, this is what their customers are paying for
The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn’t it?
Apple doesn’t licence out their operating system.
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
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.
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can’t find it anymore.
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.
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.
That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae
Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.
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.
Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?
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.
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
Exactly
deleted by creator
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?
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
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren’t caught.
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.
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
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.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
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.
That’s literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge’s interpretation.
This was a jury trial.
deleted by creator
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.
I wonder how that’s going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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 there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn’t.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.
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).
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
OP is mistaken - you can make purchases in side-loaded apps, only thing is that app can’t use the Google Play APIs for that (obviously) - but they’re free to use PayPal or stripe or w/e payment method. Google has no way of preventing sideloaded apps from doing that, and it’s not like they can ban them either.
You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows.
Actually, there isn’t even any actual “warning” - at least not on my Fold 4 - there was just one dialog to enable installation from unknown sources, with a “Settings” button that takes you directly to the page where you need to tick the box next to your browser, and as soon as you tick the box, you can click on the “Install” button to install it. That’s it. None of the dialogs you interact with has any actual warnings.
But we’re not talking about Play Store…
Epic is, in the law suite they just won.
deleted by creator
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.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
That’s not true - they wouldn’t be able to use the Google Play APIs for payments of course, but if the app is sideloaded they can definitely use any payment processor / method. If the app isn’t on the Play Store then Google has no say over it.
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
It’s really not as difficult as you make it seem.
- Send a link to the user somehow (SMS, email etc); or user goes to the website
- Click on the Download button
- Open the APK
- In the dialog box that pops up, click on the Settings button > then allow Samsung Internet
- Click on the Install button
That’s it. There were no “series of warnings” to go thru, no need to flip between multiple screens or anything. I literally just went thru this process to install the Epic store my Galaxy Fold 4 - which took only a few seconds in total - and it was in no way complicated or “scary” at all. And bear in mind that the audience in this case are gamers - people who are already familiar with the concept of downloading and installing programs on a PC, so it’s not like you’re targeting some tech-illiterate people here.
The only one that lasted is F-Droid
Not true again. Aurora Droid and Droid-ify are both reasonably popular, at least in the OSS/enthusiast communities. Yes they use the F-Droid repos but they also subscribe to other repos (Guardian Project, Izzy etc), so you’re getting your apps from multiple sources.
There are also proprietary stores such as Aptoide which are quite popular in the Asian markets. Finally, you’re completely ignoring other stores which are bundled out-of-the-box on many non-Google phones such as the Galaxy Store on Samsungs, Mi Store on Xiaomis, AppGallery on Huawei etc. Of course, in the western market the Play Store is the most dominant, but the Samsung store is reasonably popular among Samsung users (as they have regular deals on games and various other apps + some exclusives like Good Lock and other Samsung-specific apps), and of course, the OEM stores are also quite popular in Asian markets.
Not OP, and, correct me if I’m misremembering, but you did actually used to have to enable developer options to be able to sideload at all, and Android doesn’t tell you how to do that.
You seem too certain that it’s still simple, but everytime I’m installing a new APK my Xiaomi makes me wait 10 seconds and puts a big, red, scary sign saying how dangerous it is to side load, then finally the ok buttons unlocks and I install my app.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Needing an app to sign into uni
Jesus fucking hell. Bet it’s propriety.
Need an app to configure good ol’ eduroam wifi too, but that one’s on F-Droid at least
Need an app to configure good ol’ eduroam wifi too
I’m pretty sure you don’t, or at least didn’t, it’s just much more of a hassle to configure
In theory you don’t. In practice I couldn’t get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial.
It is almost impossible to get it working without the app.
Ah, well in that case, even better
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.
“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:
-
Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
-
Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges
-
Google is dominant
-
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.”
-
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.
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
deleted by creator
The Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores.
“4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.” - Google Play Developer Distribution AgreementComputers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers
I think “Computers” go back way farther than you’re imagining. There was a time when you didn’t even install software on computers. You just put in a disk and ran what was on it. We don’t even need to go back to when “Computer” was an actual job title. Something that humans (mostly women) did.
deleted by creator
…huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
To make it easy to access other app stores of course. You can use one web browser to download another can’t you.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
Maybe too simply, because I really don’t. Windows didn’t give any warnings about installing any programs until Windows 10 I think. And even then it’s only the truly esoteric and unknown to Microsoft.
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work’s security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify’s in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic’s approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
Increased competition is ALWAYS better for the customer.
You’re forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
I agree on the concerns, but it’s a virtually universal truth, so long as they’re actually forced to treat other app stores fairly. We might end up with a true third party stepping in to claim the throne, at least until the mega-corps reverse all the optimization they’ve created for their own benefits (even things like searches for apps are not fully intended to benefit the user right now, things most people don’t really realize).
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there’s a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Amazon has/had an app store, it was terrible. Though I welcome competitors to step up after this.
Amazon still has its own app store open - mostly because it’s the one Microsoft used as the base for their Android compatibility layer. I expect this ruling to give Amazon a breath of fresh air as “the alternative app store”.
Droidify with adb or Shizuku can already do that. But it needs Android 12+. Then it can do unattended updates.
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.
problem here was that Google was doing deals to undermine those things
Apple has no such “deals” because apple owns the entire stack.
Welcome to law, Apple is less monopolistic than Google legally simply because Apple built a better monopoly, by denying competition in the first place.
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.
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.
Not just the degoogled open source Android disros either. Amazon has a commercial fork of Android with its own app store. There was Oppo’s AOSP derived ColorOS which was not based on Google’s stock Android. I don’t think Google should control the core apps as tightly as they do on stock Android but on the other hand those apps sort of define stock android and the default user experience in the marketplace. Epic could roll their own fork if they wanted and substitute apps.
On the subject of Oppo, I think Tencent went after them and other Chinese manufacturers as well to get into their platforms. Tencent are the guys who push their own app store and one app to rule them that Musk has wet dreams about. I sometimes wonder if they are using Epic to wedge open US based app stores for a future WeChat/MyApp like approach. Not that the US government would allow that.
Valve created their own console and helped fund Wine development, presumably as a strategic move to counter Microsoft’s platform control. I might be missing something but I don’t see similar effort or innovation from Epic.
I believe Microsoft and Nvidia did deals with hardware manufacturers for years that helped exclude competition and those sorts of deals probably pose more difficulty in court. Google might have fallen into a trap and done something similar. Being vertically integrated Apple doesn’t have to do deals with other manufacturers but presumably they have some deals with developers. Obviously Sony, Nintendo have exclusives, agreements with developers and tight control of their platforms as well that go far beyond anything I can see with Google so I do find it a bit confusing.
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
True, thread is full of both types
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.
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
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
True. Tencent sucks
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.
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
* Allegedly.
What exactly is evidence that Google has suppressed other stores, and in what manner ? If you consider say, Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo etc - all have their own stores in parallel to the Play Store. And on all/other phones, you’re free sideload any third-party app store.
Taking my Samsung phone as an example, I don’t see the Play Store being promoted any more prominently than the Galaxy Store, nor do I see any blockers for using the Galaxy Store. I believe this is the same for other OEMs as well who bundle their own stores.
So tell me, where exactly is the suppression here?
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.
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
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.
i hope this one also smashes Apple’s business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
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.
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,
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.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don’t think so
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.
Hmm
Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.
Well thats just mean for no particular reason.
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.
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.
A little more tact could bring your comments a long way, my friend.
Nah, call them as you see them. No need to F around when it comes to people polluting the Internet.
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.
So now Google will be forced to… allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
I imagine Epic doesn’t really care about that so much as not giving Google 30% of in-game purchases in Fortnite.
But they wouldn’t have to use Google’s IAP service if they distributed Fortnite as a self-updating apk on their website.
Maybe, but that’s not where the vast majority of people look for apks and part of the lawsuit where Epic says they have a monopoly.
And ask normal people to give their browser app-install permissions?
Those sound very scary, not a very practical way to get a lot of users
Google isn’t being forced to do anything. The judge specifically stated they’re not doing injunctions or anything. If Epic has another problem, “you can come back.”
Now, that’s still a ruling, and a ruling helps dissuade Google from doing certain things, but there’s not likely to be anything “forced” here.
Currently, it’s.more that Google isn’t being forced to do anything yet. The judge has said a few things he won’t do, but the final judgement on what Google has to do are “up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be.”
If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be
As reported by The Verge,
Epic says it’s asking for three things: freedom for Epic and other developers to introduce their own stores without restriction, total freedom to use its own billing system, and an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution.”
Judge Donato says the last won’t happen: “We don’t do don’t- break-the-law injunctions… if you have a problem, you can come back.”
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
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.
looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
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
This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic
Games Launcherfree game downloader for games I forget I own. I’m very unlikely to start using Epic’s services over Google’s.I’d have taken the money and run
I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.
Ah ok that’s def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.
Hadn’t considered it.
I’d have taken the money and run
That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.
Sometimes it’s okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it’s usually worth the try.
This whole thing stinks. It’s the kind of lawsuit where you wish both parties could lose. The whole walled garden concept sucks, but this doesn’t exactly benefit consumers. Nobody wants a dozen different app stores where we need to set up accounts and payment info - not consumers and not small to medium size developers.
If Epic gets what they’re asking for it sure as hell won’t be what they want. Google still controls the OS so they can just make some shitty third party app store API with requirements just as onerous as IAP that puts everyone else at a disadvantage. If I’m Google, my new motto is “Android’s not done until Fortnite won’t run”.
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn’t Google’s app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple’s system which won.
I’m willing to bet that the judge and/or jury isn’t well versed in either business or technology and made a ruling based on ignorance and confusion.
