tmtvl
11 hours ago
Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't?
Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.
xnx
11 hours ago
It is ridiculous. From Google's reply (https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-...): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading."
ethbr1
11 hours ago
It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it worse."
Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
ApolloFortyNine
10 hours ago
If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right.
If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with.
Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.
wolpoli
8 hours ago
Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing.
What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
ethbr1
7 hours ago
Absent first mover advantage with the iPhone, it's extremely difficult to see Apple ending up where it is, with a closed ecosystem.
jychang
an hour ago
Apple isn't usually the first mover, though. It's not like the Mac was the first desktop computer, or the iPhone was the first smartphone, or the Apple Watch was the first smartwatch. Apple usually ends up with their market position whether or not they're the first mover.
orourke
6 hours ago
I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins, however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Android spaces releases something incredible, the game will change quickly.
can16358p
2 hours ago
Interesting, I have the exact opposite: I'm also a React Native developer and it's _always_ Android that creates all sorts of problems when developing where iOS is just fine. And it's not me: many devs in my team (and all the teams that I've also worked in the past) think the same way.
Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
fennecbutt
5 hours ago
60hz lmao
eru
5 hours ago
Only: the iPhone did not have first mover advantages.
There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.
WanderPanda
4 hours ago
+ being early on capacitive touchscreens and multi-touch
eru
44 minutes ago
Yes, though touchscreens weren't exactly an Apple invention either.
I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.
ethbr1
4 hours ago
Apps weren't the iPhone's first mover advantage. It was a quality data plan, browser, and hardware to support them.
eru
an hour ago
Apple doesn't even have any data plans, do they? I mean Google sometimes plays at being an ISP with projects like Loon or Google Fibre, but Apple has never done that?
unplug8224
8 minutes ago
The original iPhone was sold exclusively with an AT&T bundled plan in the US
a_wild_dandan
9 hours ago
Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
tiledjinn
4 hours ago
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments.
So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
onlypassingthru
5 hours ago
Contradictory rulings are fodder for Supreme Court dockets.
tiledjinn
4 hours ago
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future.
Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
mark336
3 hours ago
Google is appealing this case to the Supreme Court, seeing as how they ruled for Apple it wouldn't come as a surprise if they also win.
immibis
8 hours ago
Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.
Phrodo_00
8 hours ago
> Google appears open yet is closed in practice
How is Android closed in practice?
xethos
8 hours ago
For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing happening on non-Google hardware.
Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
Izkata
6 hours ago
Speaking of OEMs (and non-Google Android in general), Google has moved some functionality from base Android into Google Play Services so some apps won't work unless you get that installed.
lern_too_spel
6 hours ago
This is easily seen to be false, but I see it repeated often. The functionality in Google Play Services requires a server. If you don't use Google services, you don't need Play Services. https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages
_imnothere
5 hours ago
Apparently you don't know enough about Android, a perfect example of this is eSIM, you simply couldn't use eSIM without Google Play Services.
lern_too_spel
5 hours ago
That functionality was never available in phones with Google builds without Google Play Services, so it doesn't fit GGP's claim. The reason it's not in base AOSP out of the box is that it requires a server, and any carrier can build an implementation for downloading carrier profiles without Google Play Services and any OEM can build an LPA using https://source.android.com/docs/core/connect/esim-overview.
riversflow
3 hours ago
You don’t have GPS satellite data, “location services” without Google Play services. That means a gps lock takes minutes. This data could be stored on the phone, but it’s better for google if you fetch it from them when you need it.
lern_too_spel
2 hours ago
Another example of something that was never in AOSP and so does not fit GGGGP's claim. You can still get your GPS location without Google Play Services exactly the same as you always could.
lern_too_spel
6 hours ago
> Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage
Google incentivized the OEMs to do that. Amazon could have incentivized OEMs to do that also, but the business plan that Amazon pursued did not involve third parties building their own Kindle devices.
> Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it.
This has never been true for Android in general. This hasn't been true for phones that only ship with the Play Store since Android 12, which I credit Epic for.
RevEng
6 hours ago
Many of the fundamental apps on Android, and the Play store itself, can only be used under license. Android OSP does not contain many things that you would expect to be part of Android.
Also, most modern devices won't even let you flash your own OS, even a modified copy of Android. It's irrelevant if the source code is available if you can't actually run it anywhere. It's the TeVo case all over again.
cmxch
7 hours ago
SafetyNet’s successor and effectively forced hardware attestation make devices designed for consumption, not development.
bad_user
3 hours ago
I'm reading all the arguments below for why Google just appears open, while they aren't, and they are bullshit.
Go here, download and install the APK: https://f-droid.org/en/
You now have a third party app repository on your phone. And actually every Samsung device comes with their own app store installed in addition to Google Play. It's not perfect, Play having the privilege to automatically install updates, but good enough.
Also, AOSP is completely usable even without Google's apps or Play Services, and one proof of that is that Amazon forked it for their Kindle Fire.
The arguments from Apple fans are truly bizarre.
carlosjobim
9 hours ago
No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation.
Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
nijave
7 hours ago
That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.
Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts.
There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps
fasa99
2 hours ago
To build out this metaphor a little more, John Deere makes the tractor (phone OS) which pulls machinery (apps - plow, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc). This would be John Deere controlling which equipment the tractor may or may not be allowed to pull, only machinery allowed by John Deere who gets a 30% cut for the privilege. This would be a great deal for Johnny D!
rezonant
6 hours ago
This. I'm so tired of people (and Google/Apple themselves) trying to change the narrative and say that this is about Android and iOS competing. It's not. Both companies are effectively saying you have no right to change the upholstery in your car unless you buy the package from them.
This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.
carlosjobim
4 hours ago
> That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.
That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.
Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.
tsimionescu
29 minutes ago
You are ignoring the relevant market. Sure, Google and Apple are competitors in the smartphone market (where they have a very dangerous duopoly, but let's leave that aside). But they each have a monopoly in the software distribution market for their respective platforms. Additionally, Google has a monopoly position in the smartphone OS market: if you want to build a smartphone, Google Android is basically the only option in town (Apple doesn't sell or license iOS, so it's not a competitor at all in this market).
Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.
Dylan16807
5 hours ago
> Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
The reason it sounds weird is because you are insisting on wording it a particular way.
They're a duopoly. They're being tried for abusing that duopoly. Nothing rotten there.
o11c
7 hours ago
The word "monopoly" is irrelevant for many of the laws involved.
carlosjobim
4 hours ago
You're probably right about that. It seems to be a misunderstanding of words mostly in online discussion.
redserk
9 hours ago
While the term “monopoly” is being misused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, with basic reading comprehension, that the intent is “seemingly anti-competitive behavior”.
dnissley
10 hours ago
Sure, but I would argue that Google's platform was open enough in that it was possible to download and install alternative app stores. They shouldn't need to do most of the things that are being requested here, like distribute play store apps in those alternate stores or change their requirements about what payment systems are used in apps downloaded through their app store. For the most part I think they should still be able to do what they want to do in their own app store, just like Apple.
lancesells
10 hours ago
I think the difference is Google's platform is also on other manufacturers devices? If Android only existed on Pixel devices it could be different.
nerdix
8 hours ago
Why should that matter? If anything, shouldn't that mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly on Android apps in the way that Apple has on iOS apps because the device manufacturer can pre-install their own store on their devices? Like Galaxy Store on Samsung devices
ethbr1
7 hours ago
It matters because Google got to the current state (Play Store installed on more devices than it would have been) through anti-competitive behavior.
Ergo, the redress isn't to say "Keep the ill gotten gains, but don't do it any more" -- it's to attempt to return things to the competitive playing field that might have existed if Google hadn't broken the law.
From that perspective, forcing them to use their market share to distribute alternatives makes sense.
ssl-3
10 hours ago
It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here.
In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot).
Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of.
(Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)
rezonant
6 hours ago
I'm not worried that Google forgot to tell the judge about the other ruling. Pretty sure they are competent enough to try.
kelnos
10 hours ago
Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.
mvdtnz
9 hours ago
They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
reissbaker
6 hours ago
Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open.
In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole.
Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
underbiding
5 hours ago
The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).
eru
5 hours ago
I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?
reissbaker
3 hours ago
Yeah the code being open-source vs closed-source didn't have anything to do with the legal ruling here. The judge claimed that the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store are not competitors (LMFAO), and therefore Google can be held liable even if Apple wasn't. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
(FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
adam_arthur
2 hours ago
They aren't direct competitors.
You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls.
Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store.
Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive.
It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill.
Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them?
Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching.
If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.
zamadatix
10 hours ago
I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.
mvdtnz
9 hours ago
Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge legally-enforced advantage.
Electricniko
9 hours ago
I liked the absurdity of one of the top comments on the Verge article, which was that under the requirements of this ruling, Apple could open up an app store for Android and Google would be forced to put it on their Play Store.
freedomben
9 hours ago
Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular web browser on the Apple app store
SllX
8 hours ago
Chrome is on there and people still use it. It’s just not using Blink. Web browser ≠ rendering engine.
nijave
7 hours ago
Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine?
I would say not.
SllX
7 hours ago
Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
I would say not.
And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
lmm
5 hours ago
> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? > I would say not.
No, obviously not. If Apple were to allow third-party web rendering engines but disallow third-party web chrome that would be equally ridiculous. But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
> And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is), but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
SllX
2 hours ago
> But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink.
> but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they themselves chose to brand it exactly the same as their desktop and Android browser; and that’s exactly how people perceive it: Google Chrome. It’s also wildly popular. I ask people about it sometimes when I see them using it and all that geeky crap that you and I know about how it’s not the same as Google’s “real” browser is beyond them. They don’t care and it’s just Google Chrome to them.
> It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is)
WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.
Dylan16807
5 hours ago
> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Both of these can easily be true at the same time.
> And it has a rendering engine
Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.
SllX
2 hours ago
>>> Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine?
>> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
> Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
Only as much as what I was responding to was an argument.
> If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use.
> Which is replacing the one that was removed.
“Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones. The Chrome that is in the App Store now is one that Google chose to ship and call Chrome. People like and use it too.
I think we can agree that WebKit is being subbed in over Google’s preferred choice of rendering engines though.
rezonant
6 hours ago
A meaningless advantage.
Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS.
The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought.
But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now!
But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.
saghm
7 hours ago
The issue is that the precedent they point to was categorically ruled _not_ an illegal monopoly in a similar court case. I don't disagree that there should be more competition in for platforms, but I also can recognize that the legally binding opinion on that disagrees with mine.
tiledjinn
3 hours ago
Which case is that? Because that's not how the Apple ruling went.
saghm
3 hours ago
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple, the ruling definitively stated that Apple does not need to add third party app stores to its platform, and the appeal upheld that ruling (with the Supreme Court declining to hear further appeals, meaning the case is finished). The only change Apple had to make is supporting third-party payment platforms.
> Judge Rogers issued her first ruling on September 10, 2021, which was considered a split decision by law professor Mark Lemley.[63] Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut and Apple's prohibition against third-party marketplaces on the iOS environment.[64] Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.
> ...
> The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court.[79] Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023.[80][81] Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.[82]
> On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.
Given that the claim I was responding to implied that it was foolish of Google to cite Apple due to them being a monopoly, can you elaborate on why you think this ruling somehow was an obviously bad idea for them to argue as a precedent? To repeat myself from before, I'm _not_ expressing personal opinion about whether iOS and Android should be allowed to operate the way they do, but asserting that the court ruling does in fact state that the current way Apple handles third-party app stores is legal.
eru
5 hours ago
Two 'monopolies' in app stores aren't a monopoly. They are at most a duopoly..
kelnos
10 hours ago
Sure, but I think it's fair to say "why are you regulating us significantly more than you are regulating our similar competitor?" Android is already more open than iOS; you can already install third-party app stores, where the only hoop you have to jump is agreeing to a warning about installing things from "unknown sources".
But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor does it give access to the full Play Store catalog to third-party app stores. Frankly I'd never even thought of the latter thing as something I or anyone would want, but sure, ok, make them do that.
Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their App Store monopoly (in the US at least), a situation that is even more locked down than Android's has ever been.
I absolutely agree that Apple's platform needs to be opened up too. And while I'm often not sympathetic toward Google on a lot of things, I can absolutely be sympathetic toward them feeling like they are being treated vastly unequally by the law.
tsimionescu
20 minutes ago
It's simple. There exists a market for app stores on Android, there doesn't exist such a market on iOS. So, Apple can't be said to have a monopoly position in the iOS app distribution market, because, again, such a market doesn't exist, and there is no general obligation to create one (there is a different discussion about the app market, which Epic was attacking and which failed for now).
But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.
rezonant
6 hours ago
It does make sense for Amazon's app store, as it's a general app store. Makes way less sense for Epic and other gaming/company focused storefronts.
colonelpopcorn
6 hours ago
But it is. For the savvy user you can run whatever you want on an android device.
tsimionescu
19 minutes ago
Which is exactly why the Google case succeeded: Google does have competing app stores, and they are crushing them using anti-competitive practices.
jiggawatts
10 hours ago
Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and their distribution network.
Urgo
8 hours ago
Ebay sellers already can do this [1] [2]
fredgrott
11 hours ago
unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they sign....its not open like Google claims....
ascagnel_
10 hours ago
They got caught doing the same thing Microsoft got caught doing in the 90s with IE/Netscape -- using their monopoly position on one piece of software (Windows, the Google app suite) to prevent their OEMs from shipping another piece of software by default (Netscape, Epic Games Store) that directly competed with their own offering (Internet Explorer, Google Play Store). Since Google and Microsoft both use OEMs, unlike Apple in their parallel case, there's a clearer line to how Google is being unfair compared to how Apple is being unfair.
In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
In general, in the courts, it's a lot easier to ask a judge or jury for someone to stop doing a thing (blocking their software from being pre-installed) vs. forcing someone to do something they're not currently doing (allowing any third-party app stores).
to11mtm
9 hours ago
> In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
This is actually very insightful given the history between Google and Samsung with Tizen.
nijave
7 hours ago
>allowing any third-party app stores
Couldn't you reword that as allowing unsigned and self signed software to be installed? You can push your own apps to your iOS device but iirc Apple artificially limits the number of self signed apps that can be installed
ascagnel_
2 hours ago
Aside from the EU explicitly mandating it, the developer agreement you sign with Apple in order to ship software on their platform prohibits you from doing so. And while you theoretically can write your own storefront, running self-signed apps isn’t going to be a viable user story with the way Apple’s set it up (intentionally, in my opinion).
Timshel
10 hours ago
It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like:
- Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
- Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
- Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
- Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.
johnnyanmac
8 hours ago
- wow, this is an exact case Apple more or less won in Apple v Epic. They got some minor slap on the wrist about steering but they still got around that. Apple must have paid their judge off big time
- Yup, this is the steering that Apple "lost".
>Starting January 16, developers can apply for an entitlement to provide a link within their app to a website the developer owns or is responsible for. The entitlement can only be used for iOS or iPadOS apps in the United States App Store.
There's so many stipulations to getting this approved that it's hard to call it a win. Just more delays
- good, but ofc irrelevant on Apple for now.
- And good. Somewhat relevant for Apple but the stipulations above make this hard.
I mostly hope this precedent can be used against future Apple proceedings to get that store opened up.
seany
9 hours ago
- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
derkades
8 hours ago
Since Android 12, third party app stores can auto-update apps
kbolino
9 hours ago
This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked by the Play Store version eventually.
rezonant
6 hours ago
Generally no that doesn't happen. It may be very specific to Amazon though. Android uses signing keys to validate updates, and if the signing key doesn't match, it is impossible to install the update. My guess is Amazon (was?) using the same signing keys between the two stores.
Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
ranger_danger
5 hours ago
This is not true, I get automatic updates with F-Droid just fine.
signal11
6 hours ago
The Epic v Google and Epic v Apple cases are a great showcase about how the law actually works in practice.
Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2].
There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law.
(Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.)
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
GeekyBear
9 hours ago
If you claim the platform you create is open, but use anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that the platform is closed.
Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox.
Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .
lolinder
8 hours ago
This is a terrible incentive structure to set up for platforms.
I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens.
How is that better for consumer choice?
tsimionescu
10 minutes ago
If Google had tried to make an iPhone style ecosystem, all evidence is clear that they would have utterly failed, like almost every other consumer device that Google has tried to promote, and we would have had at least a few more iOS competitors (maybe Windows would have lived? Maybe Samsung would have finished Tizen?). The reason Android succeeded was precisely because it was open and available to multiple OEMs. But that also opens Google up more to anti-competitive scrutiny.
makeitdouble
7 hours ago
From the TFA
> Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
> Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
> Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
> Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Have you really never ran into any apps that would have hit these restrictions ?
If you've never have use the Play Store in the first place that would be the case, but otherwise I'd assume every app you got from there are subjected to those.
lolinder
6 hours ago
Yes. I install everything I can through F-Droid or sideloading and only fall back on the Play Store for a few things like banking apps which couldn't care less about Google's monetization rules.
makeitdouble
2 hours ago
Thanks for the clarification.
On banking apps, I wonder how isolated they are. My bank offers insurance services, and they can be paid through other means than my bank account. But I can't contract them in my app, it's only available by phone or through the web site.
I wonder if they just took the safest route and removed any "buying" operation from their app instead of having to fight Apple or Google later (used both apps, had same limitations)
toast0
5 hours ago
As an Android user, I've paid for two, maybe three? apps. And got a refund on one because the paid version didn't do what I thought it said it did.
The restrictions on non-Google billing did impact my employer, but it was less of a problem in the US as in some other countries where Google only billing meant we couldn't charge users as very few had Google compatible payment methods and Google wouldn't let us use other providers that could accept money with the payment methods people actually had. We had other methods in our apk download, but I recall having to take those out, too.
Of course, Apple made payment go through them, but most Apple can accept payments from most of their users, and a lot of their users have a payment method on file.
makeitdouble
2 hours ago
To note, the above restriction's impact is not only affecting paid apps, but also all the apps that could have offered paid services.
Amazon Kindle is the poster child of that, but there's a myriad of other services that won't make an app to protect their feelings structure.
acdha
6 hours ago
> I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging
That sounds like you either haven’t heard all of the indie developers complaining or are inclined to find reasons to say problems with “your side” have some other explanation. For example, this was just a couple weeks ago where Google’s “open platform” blocked a popular app from doing what their mutual customers wanted:
https://ia.net/topics/our-android-app-is-frozen-in-carbonite
naravara
6 hours ago
If you chose Android because it’s open, then the judge has just forced Google to make it more open for you.
If someone chose iOS because it’s closed then the judge has decided it can stay mostly closed.
Also Google is where it is because they pitched a platform that was friendlier for carriers to load up with crapware than Apple was. It wasn’t really openness for openness’ sake. If Google hadn’t done that we might have been in a world where Palm or Microsoft were the secondary or primary player next to iOS.
lolinder
6 hours ago
I'm not really concerned about what will happen to Android—worst case scenario at this point, the community forks it and I use the fork.
I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. As long as this is the state of US law, we won't see another open platform developed in the US because these rulings together say that the only way to be sure you're not punished for anti-competitive behavior is to ensure that no one can ever define a "market" around your platform. Only a fully walled garden is safe.
spunker540
3 hours ago
Google is not being punished for being “open”. It’s being punished for pressuring OEMs and app developers into illegal contracts behind closed doors, or in other words using its monopoly position in anti competitive ways.
Apple published the rules for their App Store over a decade ago and has largely stood by them so Apple is not being punished.
ocdtrekkie
7 hours ago
"I chose Android because it's open"
But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you.
It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
lolinder
7 hours ago
> You were defrauded
No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years.
Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
ocdtrekkie
7 hours ago
Your lack of understanding of how you were defrauded does not change that you were. This is exactly why the government sometimes steps in to fix things even when a company is considered popular by consumers.
Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well.
You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.
lolinder
6 hours ago
> Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed
I can't even remember the last time I bought something on the Play Store. Nearly everything I've installed for years has been open source from F-Droid or was my own personal code that I wrote and loaded onto my phone without passing through any gatekeeper.
You can keep being condescending if it makes you happy, but you could also consider that maybe you don't know me?
spunker540
3 hours ago
Everything you have downloaded that was routed through Google’s undersea cables was illegally taxed
tick_tock_tick
6 hours ago
I think the problem everyone is having is the government is seeing something that isn't there. We don't have a "lack of understanding" but are rather just so much more informed and educated then the legal system on this matter that we came to the correct conclusion while they failed to reach a basic understanding.
ocdtrekkie
5 hours ago
This is an incredible example of the hubris and ego of tech nerds. The court got it right, because the issue isn't tech, it's economics. The idea that understanding some code makes you more qualified than a judge to handle antitrust law is laughable.
It doesn't matter that 0.01% of users can technically install F-Droid. Reality, is that 99.99% of people fundamentally can't. Apparently the judge can understand this, and you can't.
miki123211
6 hours ago
it's not about whether your platform is open or not, but about who's making the devices and what you're forcing them to do.
XBox is only made by Microsoft, there are no XBox OEMs, and Microsoft can do whatever they like to their devices. They're not forcing any manufacturer to do anything, because they are the manufacturer. Same with iPhones, Play Station consoles and so on.
Windows computers and Android phones are manufactured by many companies, and Microsoft and Google were engaging in anticompetitive behavior by forcing everybody who wanted their OSes to do certain things, and that's the problem here.
mr_toad
5 hours ago
> Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox.
It helps a lot that they are the only sellers of the XBox. With Windows they were strong-arming third party manufacturers. The situation is similar with Apple and iOS. Because it’s “their” phone they have more control. Google was telling other manufacturers of android phones what to do, which crossed a line.
xenadu02
10 hours ago
Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget to the end user very differently from a company that sells a piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end user.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.
mvdtnz
9 hours ago
Google does both. And you haven't made an argument or brought any facts at all to the discussion, you just vaguely waved your hands at the court system and said "A is not B".
kelnos
10 hours ago
I think we just have different priors.
My belief is that, fundamentally, everything should be open. Users should have full control over their devices, and manufacturers should have no place in dictating anything about how they are used, what software can and can't run on them, etc. (Note that I'm not being anti-proprietary-software here; I don't think companies should be required to give away their source code if they don't want to.)
I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
diebeforei485
9 hours ago
The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow.
I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
sgc
8 hours ago
If some random app now wants me to use their random payment system, I will 100% just delete the app. Not a chance. I will and do install apps outside the app store, but I will not start using random payment systems. In other words, although I agree the amount developers pay is too high, for me and probably many other end users, the most valuable part of the Play store is the payment system.
idle_zealot
3 hours ago
> The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow.
The solution to this remains the same as ever: curation of software packages. You can install any app you want, but you're probably going to use some front-end to manage that (Play Store, App Store). It's up to those platforms to curate what apps they host, and up to the user to delegate safety c he checks to platforms they trust.
graeme
10 hours ago
It's because android is licensed to third party manufacturers and google changed the terms in a way contrary to law. Whereas Apple has had the same terms since the app store's launch and only used the app store on Apple devices.
It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
akira2501
10 hours ago
> is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't?
This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!"
> so I guess that's fair.
Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"
kelnos
10 hours ago
> They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
tiledjinn
3 hours ago
Better to say Apple failed to lose. The court explicitly left open the question as to whether they are a monopoly. They just didn't provide any meaningful injunctions as a result of that case.
ocdtrekkie
7 hours ago
The core difference is Apple had a bench trial and Google let actual people decide in a jury trial, which is a lot harder to swindle with legal technicalities, and also much harder to overturn on appeal.
Spivak
10 hours ago
> Would that be more "fair?"
Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction.
Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
wiseowise
10 hours ago
I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and Apple sued to hell until they comply.
akira2501
10 hours ago
One is a Federal criminal case.
The other is a Civil damages case.
Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable.
Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
lovethevoid
10 hours ago
Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only.
Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well.
Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.
kelnos
10 hours ago
> Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically
Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%.
> Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only.
But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law.
I think that's garbage, though, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
to11mtm
8 hours ago
To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability.
Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water...
To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open.
[0] - AARD Code, anyone?
[1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements
nerdix
8 hours ago
Yes, Apple has been consistently bad.
Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time.
I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
tsimionescu
2 minutes ago
This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.
to11mtm
7 hours ago
> I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another.
> The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Agreed.
zmmmmm
7 hours ago
While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative payment provider but putting so many warnings in place that no user would ever do it.
I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.
NotPractical
6 hours ago
It's not quite as convoluted as you describe, and I don't think Android ever changes that setting on your behalf. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous. IMO it's a good thing that they provide you with appropriate warnings.
rpdillon
6 hours ago
It's only dangerous if Google has better judgment than the end user. This may be the case for the majority of users, but there's a significant subset for whom it's not the case. It'd be nice if there were a way for the end user to nudge Google to step aside.
blangk
6 hours ago
There is : the end user allows side loading from their preferred app, such as f-droid. Am I missing something?
noitpmeder
2 hours ago
This is an insane take. Android handles side loading amazingly.
Ferret7446
5 hours ago
Convoluted how? I have literally installed third party app stores on Android many years ago and continued to have done so in the same manner to this very day. You download the APK and when you install it, you have to click two buttons to confirm (one to go to settings, and one to turn on installed apps from untrusted sources).
sadeshmukh
3 hours ago
No clue what you're talking about. What device do you use? On a Pixel (Google's phone) you download it, then you open it (it warns you that it could have anything) and then it is installed.
jojobas
7 hours ago
I'll take convoluted over outright impossible any day. I'll also take convolutedly unlockable bootloader over the vendor having access to my device even when I don't.
hulitu
13 minutes ago
> Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager)
Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.
Yeul
10 hours ago
The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.
EasyMark
5 hours ago
Two different cases in two different courts, it’s bound to happen. No judge has to abide by the decision of other judges except when it finally hits SCOTUS
miki123211
7 hours ago
This isn't just about which store is a monopoly, but about what companies choose to do with that fact.
Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences.
The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.
Melatonic
6 hours ago
Is the title confusing or am I missing something ?
heavyset_go
10 hours ago
They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.
scarface_74
10 hours ago
Yes because Google said there platform was “open” and then changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting beforehand.
There is Supreme Court precedent for this
NotPractical
8 hours ago
This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement with Google that promised me source code for Android or the ability to sideload on my Android phone?
AStonesThrow
6 hours ago
For starters, it's the "O" in "AOSP":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope...
So, 2007-present, that's when.
Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.
scarface_74
7 hours ago
They actually did promise you could get the source code for Android.
From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/
> the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
RevEng
6 hours ago
AOSP still exists, but it doesn't include most of the Google specific apps.
scarface_74
6 hours ago
And Google has continuously moved away from “open” - that’s just the point
https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
kmeisthax
9 hours ago
Apple's business model is more amenable to current law's obsession with "intellectual property". If the government grants you a monopoly over a market, it's not a crime to exert monopoly power over that market. Apple's argument is "we can sell iOS however we want", and this works because the US has the best copyright laws money can buy. We need to fix them.
Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
scotty79
8 hours ago
There's no F-Droid in Play Store
throw653649
11 hours ago
I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit.
Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon.
I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026
JumpCrisscross
9 hours ago
> is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple?
Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations.
Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1].
> Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted?
Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
johnnyanmac
6 hours ago
>a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic.
Given the FTC going after Amazon, I think it's a relevant question to consider. these cases will inevitably influence if Apple is gone after, but who goes after them will depend a lot on the US's government.
throw653649
8 hours ago
> But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic
Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
JumpCrisscross
5 hours ago
> Surely politics has something to do with this decision?
Why? Plenty of judges rule without partisan predictability. This case doesn’t seem to have any more politics involved than any federal case.
If you have evidence of something interesting, sure, bring it up. But “maybe there are other interests involved, find the evidence for me” isn’t a conversation.
immibis
8 hours ago
It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it
stefan_
11 hours ago
If I remember correctly the problem here is that in Googles version of an "open platform", they hide alternative app install behind fifteen menus of settings, restrict functionality (auto updates) and issue scary popups to users. These are deliberate choices that expose them. They also keep having to pull more anti-competitive moves with device manufacturers to keep control of Android.
cma
11 hours ago
> and where you can easily install apps through other means
When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
Ferret7446
5 hours ago
I don't remember how far back, but I remember third party apps working just fine at least, say, 5-6 years ago. The case was brought 2020, so I doubt this is true.
cma
3 hours ago
Android 12 was what fixed what I meant to refer to: unattended updates with third party sideloaded stores. It's from 2021 and probably didn't get 50% marketshare until ~2023 or so. Developers for those app stores had to deal with their users being out of date all the time to a much bigger extent than Play store and officially partnered stores.
And Android WearOS is still hard for side-loaded stores to work with at all without developer debugging mode I think and is tightly integrated with the phone stuff.
talldayo
11 hours ago
Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for the first time.
heavyset_go
9 hours ago
There weren't scare screens, at least I don't remember any, but the upgrade flow was comically bad for apps installed outside of the Play Store.
Let's say you install 15 apps on F-Droid. Every time you want to upgrade your apps, you were forced to manually initiate, and then sit through, each app update as they're installed in the foreground. This was because of deliberate limitations in Android.
Whereas on the Play Store, you could hit one button to update all of your installed apps and the installations happened in the background.
I believe it was after Google was threatened with lawsuits that they modified Android to be less tedious when it comes to managing and upgrading apps outside of the Play Store.
cma
10 hours ago
I believe the right thing I wanted to refer to is unattended app updates, enabled for third party sideloaded stores only with Android 12 or so. Maybe 12 added it back after it was taken away at some earlier point?
kokada
10 hours ago
I am an Android user for a long time (since Android 2.2) and used pretty much every version from then on. Google devices (from Nexus to Android One devices and now Pixels) pretty much always allowed unattended updates for a long time (you may be right about Android 12, my memory is fuzzy here). And I never remember having scary warnings for sideloaded apps, sure, Android made it more difficult to install them (by having a permission per app instead a global permission, but I would say this was a very welcome change), but it was never convoluted or difficult.
But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update.
So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
kelnos
10 hours ago
I think what people upthread are talking about is allowing third-party stores (like F-Droid) to do unattended updates. That has not been possible until recently. Up until Android 12 or so (possibly later), I had to manually approve it any time F-Droid wanted to update an app I'd installed through F-Droid itself.
Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.
whimsicalism
11 hours ago
e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced
shaky-carrousel
11 hours ago
Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
lostmsu
11 hours ago
This court case was in Northern California.
ToucanLoucan
11 hours ago
I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third party app stores?
dialup_sounds
10 hours ago
There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up:
In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties.
In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
tiledjinn
3 hours ago
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.
whimsicalism
11 hours ago
they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
ToucanLoucan
11 hours ago
I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
NotPractical
6 hours ago
The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization.
[1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
johnnyanmac
6 hours ago
The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store.
The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
tencentshill
10 hours ago
What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
9 hours ago
> percentage
Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
ToucanLoucan
9 hours ago
None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
whimsicalism
11 hours ago
I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
ribosometronome
10 hours ago
The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
whimsicalism
9 hours ago
I think there is a big difference between devices that don’t easily support running third party code and apple devices which they have had to spend lots of money developing multiple signing schemes, bug patches, threatening jailbreak communities, etc. just to prevent people from running 3rd party code
tadfisher
10 hours ago
What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
ToucanLoucan
9 hours ago
> What is the downside for the consumer here?
Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware.
To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would:
- Let me access functions like customizing firmware
- Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem)
- Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
wiseowise
10 hours ago
> A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.
Spivak
10 hours ago
Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
throw16180339
10 hours ago
If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
heavyset_go
9 hours ago
If you don't want to install apps outside of the App Store, you don't have to.
If other iPhone users want to install their own apps without jumping through absurd hoops, let them instead of telling them what they can and can't do with the hardware they own.
whimsicalism
9 hours ago
I might switch now that Apple has been forced to embrace RCS - but the blue bubble lockout for younger people is/was unfortunately very real.
ToucanLoucan
9 hours ago
People say this as though teens and tweens aren't just going to find something else to latch onto immediately to bully the fuck out of one another.
I never dealt with the "blue bubble" thing but it's not like I wasn't mercilessly bullied for basically my entire education about everything else you could possibly think of past the fourth grade. I'm all for tackling bullying, I think it's fucking heinous the kinds of things schools let happen under their watch, but let's not kid ourselves that Apple opening up iMessage is going to do a fucking thing about this.
atrus
10 hours ago
> My phone
Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
weikju
9 hours ago
Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
iLoveOncall
11 hours ago
In the EU only
kelnos
9 hours ago
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
nixosbestos
4 hours ago
The court having asinine double-standards when it comes to Apple? What's their HN account? edit: the replies basically just reinforcing the point, absolute :chefskiss: