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.
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."
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.
"even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility..."
It would be informative to know—by jurisdiction—the stats of what type of smartphone OS the key deciders had in their pockets.
Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and their distribution network.
It has allowed it, but it intentionally cripples alternative markets. For example, I cannot allow F-Droid to autoinstall and autoupdate apps on my phone if I don't have a rooted device.
unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they sign....its not open like Google claims....
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.
- 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.
- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
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...
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. .
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
"Principles" as in arbitrary precedents set by bribed politically-motivated lawmakers and judges.
No, people are correctly pointing out the fact that this is blatantly unfair. You are claiming that 2+2=5 because a judge said so.
If you are concerned about the "consequences" maybe you should start thinking about how open platforms are now legally disadvantaged to closed platforms.
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.
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?"
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
This is an insane take. Android handles side loading amazingly.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Sideloading and ability to disable including system app (--user 0) have never been easier. Its the PlayProtect which being disabled still insists on scanning apps intrusively and constantly nagging you while installing apps either package installer or side loading.
>While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need
Huh? You download an apk and click a security prompt to allow non-store installations and it installs them, it's not particularly hard or complicated.
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
The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.
> 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.
This kind of low effort cynicism drives me crazy.
When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes.
Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.
the decision is indeed contrary to previous decisions about apple
Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading.
Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision.
---
IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary.
Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it).
Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.
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.
Is the title confusing or am I missing something ?
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
[deleted]
> 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_...
There's no F-Droid in Play Store
I came here looking for this comment and you didn’t disappoint
e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced
Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
This court case was in Northern California.
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:
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?
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.
they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.
Epic's "First Run" program does all the things they got mad at Apple and Google about.
You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store.
Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform.
When Epic ships a phone or computer with the Epic Store as the only optional for installing apps or games, then we can talk.
Epic Store on Windows can't be accused of this monopolistic behaviour because Windows is not locked down and alternatives to the platform's distribution exists. Epic Store is one of those beneficiaries.
Windows and Epic's deals demonstrates there exists a market with competition and choices for developers and users. Developers can chose to take Epic up on their deal. Users can chose to use the Epic Store or not. The courts ruled that this choice does not effectively exist on Android because of all the dealings that Google did to prevent competition.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that Google suppresses alternative pricing models in the Play Store. You can not like a proposed alternative payment structure (as a developer), or not want to use Epic Store on Android. It would be great if the market could decide on what it wants here, instead of Google preventing any competition.
All I care about is having some healthy competition in the marketplace again.
If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine.
Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.
Tying Google's hands while giving Apple a clean bill of health isn't going to increase competition, it's going to solidify Apple's lead in the US.
The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to prevent Google and Apple from together duopolizing the entire mobile phone space, but this is not that.
As I recall, the original App Store argument was "It would cost a lot more than 30% to mint CDs and sell them in Waldenbooks, so we're doing developers a favor by _only_ charging 30% to distribute."
No companies (at least above the “tiny” category) care about anything, they are paper-clip machines and the only thing preventing them from extracting iron from our blood is the law.
I will find it deliciously ironic and welcomed if precedents set by Epic are eventually used against them. The even more hilarious news though is that apparently PC users hate their platform so much though, that exclusivity on Epic is perhaps more of a liability. I read the other day that that new open world Star Wars game had “disappointing” sales because of that.
It's strange to me, because there's literally more competition in the space, but people are unhappy about it. PC games used to regularly be Steam exclusive for years on end, and now games are often available on multiple stores within months or a year from release, but people are for some reason unhappy about this fact.
For example, Borderlands 2 (on PC) was Steam exclusive for something like 7 years and nobody seemed to mind. Borderlands 3 (on PC) was EGS exclusive for 6 months and people got very upset about it.
How is it not better to have a game available on two launchers within 6 months than to have a game available on only one launcher for 7 years?
> apparently PC users hate their platform so much
This is silly too though, it's no different to Steam both are consumer hostile systems where you own nothing. It's just Steam had the early years where it built up good will through some sales.
That sounds more akin to a standard exclusivity agreement and seems much different (at least to me) from what Google got in trouble for.
Their vision, which I disagree with, of customer choice, is that its store is an alternative to Steam. Probably they justify their exclusives by not being a monopoly, which gets weird: steam has the monopoly numbers, but epic has the monopoly practices.
They got a few customers from their giveaways - they should stick to those and further improving their store, maybe some people will actually want to use it.
There's no such thing as "monopoly practices". Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Exclusivity deals aren't illegal. What's illegal is using your powerful position in a market (a monopoly) to prevent competition. It's really the "prevent competition" bit where companies get in trouble.
An exclusivity deal from an upstart could be how they actually enable competition to exist.
I fail the see the correlation. Epic is synergizing with its platform that is a tiny fraction of its market and its engine that is also not a monopoly (Unity still the most used engine). This context does indeed matter a lot. Hard to lock out competition when your competition is 8x the market share.
>Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field
of course not. But enemy of my enemy. As of now their arguments benefit the consumer. If they ever do form a monopoly and keep doing these tactics, we can talk lawsuits.
> synergizing with its platform
That's some beautiful corpspeak.
"Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"
Epic doesn't make phones that run Epic made OS.
> You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments
That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.
I don't get it. Epic is offering a different pricing model that might or might not be more advantageous to developers
That is literally what competition should look like.
From the judges decisions:
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
There were lots of times Microsoft filed amicus briefs against patent trolls and the like, claiming the need for a "free and open internet" or "open standards in the X space", while still in the hot seat for bundling Internet Explorer.
Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.
And we don't care about Epic and still want the benefits of their trials.
They just want max profits without paying any fees.
> they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform
Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?
Your defense has no merit to their actions -=-> "Well yeah; they're a software company."
You are giving them a free pass.
Nobody cares "who's right" here; consumers just want competition because when businesses compete the consumers win.
List of extremely tired and boring things:
- Not fully understanding something, but having an opinion about it, with no attempt to learn more.
- "All companies are evil" yawn
Next time, can you try a more exciting criticism of Epic? We've been going through these lawsuits for four years now, every easy original thought has been thought and poasted about, you need to think a bit harder for your next comment.
I also disagree with GP's post because you don't need to use any of Epic's software. At the same time, I don't think your response is in line with HN's guidelines and is unnecessary.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
I've been pretty anti-google on this topic (and a long time fdroid-lover). but this ruling is nuts to me, particularly where it says google "must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps"
I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
Maybe the committee will operate within the confines of this outline to set more structure and make this workable, but it seems very handy-wavey in how this is going to work...
One counter-take to this is the web itself: There's no curation or incentive structure to the web, yet it thrives in ways far outpacing the walled garden app stores.
and likewise, 90% of people still converge onto some dozen websites per region anyway. If people really want that "one true platform", they will congregate and make that platform a monopoly. Against their best interests in my experience, but humanity sometimes need to re-learn the same pitfalls every generation.
You already have the web on your phone. The sensible comparison for the (non-web) mobile app market is to the (non-web) desktop app market, and that's not a clear-cut improvement. I'd guess people currently have more mobile apps than desktop apps, just as you'd expect if the desktop app market were suffering due to lots of garbage/spam/malware from insufficient garden-walling.
> where every app store has the same apps
Can't you buy dyson vacuums at the dyson store, at target, and on amazon?
Personally, this is making android phones a lot more interesting.
dyson doesn't sell third party stuff. If ikea was forced to sell all their chairs at every store, but only for 3 years. are people looking for chairs going to have better options for where to get chairs at the end of the 3 years? I think they'll just be confused and go to their previous buying habits (namely their favorite furniture store or google/epic/samsung app stores). I expect a mess with a lot of unintended consequences, such as conditioning people to think all third party app stores are the exact same, which could harm distribution methods like fdroid (though epic might be happy with that type of outcome)
> I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
So what, it's how the music world operates as well. Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube have virtually all that one could ever want to listen (and I'd guess Youtube has the biggest catalog from all the pirates LOL).
I'm all for more mandatory-licensing options, particularly the movie/series space is long overdue for getting a few butts thoroughly kicked - all the streaming sites combined are now more expensive than a cable bill.
I hear you and sort of agree with your general point. Though I think I would love to see the exact same Google Play, but with filtering for apps with ads and IAP. Basically so I could filter for freeware, open source and paid apps.
> I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
The horrors of free will and choice.
Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!
Right, just like how they've done on desktop environments
This is exactly the situation for desktop games right now, something Epic is profiting immensely from. It's an extremely annoying situation for users, having a dozen launcher/store apps around contributing to bloat.
That's not really a valid comparison because the Microsoft Store and the macOS App Store don't allow third party stores on them. You have to "sideload" any alternative stores/apps you want. To be clear I doubt the hellscape described by OP will come to fruition but still.
Aye and it’s a fucking shit show.
Down with all “stores”!
Yep. Then consumers can decide which one is best for them. Then they can compete. Then the best features with the best pricing, no only for customers, but the cut for developers, can be discovered.
You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
How can I decide which store is best for me when the only store I can get Spotify from is the Spotify store? And the only store with Instagram is the Meta store?
If every store had to make every app available, then sure I'd have choice and maybe that could be super cool.
But nobody's talking about that. We're talking about a world where major corporations will make their apps available only through their own stores and can refuse to do refunds and make canceling subscriptions a nightmare.
I don't see any increased choice at all. All I see is corporations forcing their own stores, that will probably be far less consumer-friendly, and users won't have any increased choice at all.
> You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
I got an iPhone so that I wouldn't have to deal with the Android ecosystem. I go to the app store, install an app, and get on with my life.
Amazon Prime Video... Netflix... Disney Plus... The choices are great...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
I want it because I've seen the Samsung app store and am not inspired by the idea of more trash. People like curated gardens because they're curated.
0 people outside of tech geeks want more than one app store. None.
I wish that was true, but the exit and prompt return of seemingly every PC game developer back to Steam doesn't give much hope.
That’s only because you can’t understand that I don’t want a package manager for my package managers. I just want to install the damn software and be done with it; and I’m pretty happy with the way Apple runs the App Store as an iPhone customer, even though I think some of the restrictions are also senseless as viewed through that prism and their developer relations has been a dumpster fire for close to 10 years now. None of that is enough to get me excited about some future great App Store competition.
If every company self regulates their own App Store, then who is going to go to ensure apps are trustworthy and reliable?
Imagine if Spotify had a Spotify store that required device id tracking for their ad network.
Do you have anything to prove your claim? Any precedent?
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't.
Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?
Points at the netflix app, through which you can install bloons Tower defense
This but unironically. Openness breeds innovation and improvement, closing down systems never does. Safety cannot be the only innovation
That can only happen if Apple's first-party distribution terms aren't attractive. If the App Store is capable of standing on it's own, then third parties shouldn't pose a threat to it. Something tells me the lower prices and free software on alternative stores will drive adoption though.
I see where it says Google isn't allowed to do this kind of thing. I hope they were forward thinking enough to ban exclusivity deals across the board, or this is going to turn into a total goat rodeo.
The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.
This is a civil case in the US though
Who is going to force Verizon to allow other app stores on their contract phones?
That’s a nightmare scenario, and honestly, it’s not that far-fetched
okay. Then I just use APK pure and find the APKs there. See what freedom does?
Realistically, this never happens. making a platform isn't some cheap endeavor like a landing page for a website. Most people will stay on the play store and use play services. Those with more skin will consider alternative stores, and then lastly some will make their own platforms.
If the phone manufacturers stop including the play store in the default install. Then would people still use the play store?
I like my app store called "the internet."
> and it must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps
That one feels a step too far to me. It seems like it should be the developer's job to share their app with third party stores, not Google's.
Sounds like an easy mass copyright infringement case to me against any third party store distributing your app without consent.
I haven't verified but I'd be very surprised if this isn't preemtively covered already when an uploader agrees to Play Store terms. I don't believe Google gives any guarantees that apps will be exclusively only accessible via the Play Store app frontend and never redistributed via other channels.
That isn't "all apps on Google Play". It's "all apps developed by Google that integrate with the Google Play system."
Nah, it's absolutely all apps on google play.
> For a period of three years, Google will permit third-party Android app stores to access the Google Play Store's catalog of apps so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users. For apps available only in the Google Play Store (i.e., that are not independently available through the third-party Android app store), Google will permit users to complete the download of the app through the Google Play Store on the same terms as any other download that is made directly through the Google Play Store. Google may keep all revenues associated with such downloads. Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store. Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology is fully functional.
I think it's a tough call though. I get it, the court ruled Google had a monopoly, and this is supposed to prop up 3P app stores temporary until they can get footing.
The fact it's opt out is... good? I mean at least there's an option. But it also feels they are also forcing devs hands by making it opt out.
Perhaps, but that will mean that you will be able to download the official apks from other places, which is what aurora store does but without having to use a google account (probably, but not sure about that).
Not sure how that will work for paid apps, but for free apps...maybe it's good?
I have mixed opinions here though (as a user and as a developer)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh! Is this only Google's own apps? I read it as requiring Google to offer some kind of API to allow any app that any developer lists on the Play Store to be sucked into a third-party store. What would "unless developers opt out individually" mean then?
This applies to every app in the Play Store, not just Google's apps.
Love this, but Apple's the big offender not Google. Google's already pretty open, and they approve most apps. It's not hard to get your app on the Play Store, it's Apple and the App Store that make publishing your apps a nightmare.
Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.
No, it's the opposite. Apple has reasonable process with human support
Google Play is full of trip wires, you trigger one and your account is gone, your career of independent developer is over
I think the concept of lifetime bans from big tech platforms needs to be reevaluated, but there is not much difference between Google's "trip wires" and Apple's "red lines": your app is not allowed to exist either way.
Patreon faces an existential crisis right now: use in-app purchases or the app will be removed. Game streaming wasn't banned right up until it was. No amount of support has helped with these red lines - not even the committee they allegedly created for developers to challenge the rules. Their support has only helped in the absurd cases, like demanding WordPress implement IAPs or rejecting dictionaries for containing swear words.
For all the people commenting on the discrepancy between this ruling and the one in Apple’s case: now perhaps you see the value of good lawyers. Apple was able to convince the judge in their case to fairly narrowly define the market segment at issue. Google failed to do that here. And no, it’s not as simple as saying they’re the same so this will get overturned on appeal to stay consistent with the Apple ruling. The market segment definition is case-specific and fact-intensive.
Good lawyers or BS legal system?
Cases aren’t decided purely by the law. They’re also decided on the facts, and the facts are what are entered into the court record.
It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring their own software and services over that of their competitors as part of their agreement with phone makers.
Apple makes and sells phones, including the OS, and services for those phones including the App Store. They’re not telling Samsung they must favor Apple services in order to receive an iOS license because they don’t license iOS to Samsung for Samsung’s phones.
Google and Apple both chose their own business plans here, which is their right, but it also put them on different legal footing when Epic came calling in Court because in theory, Android was supposed to be an open ecosystem that third party app markets could thrive on and it just wasn’t that, in particular because Google was putting their thumb on the scale.
Bias in a supposedly neutral court would certainly fall under BS legal systems, yes.
Oh cool ! Will the apps installed through froid be recognized in droidify ?
So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via F-Droid? Seems complicated.
> the better F-Droid client
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
The most interesting bit for me was "I won’t discuss the Apple case more than this brief outline since I’m ethically bound." This included a link to: https://www.theverge.com/authors/sean-hollister/archives/38
Did his wife sign an Apple NDA that applies to family members? Or does he not want to anger Apple out of fear of retaliation towards his wife? Either way, I don't see how the word "ethics" applies to either situation.
He has a potential motive to lie or to distort the truth. Or maybe he has not, but an outside observer cannot know it for sure. So if he will speak freely he will become a target of attacks based on his supposed hidden motivation, and it can happen without regard to his real impartiality.
So probably more than half of his household income comes from Apple, so there's a conflict of interest. The ethical choice is not to "try to be neutral", but simply to acknowledge that someone else who actually is neutral is more qualified to report on that topic.
It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.
That makes sense, thank you.
Yeah that's weird. Like, maybe they should have gotten someone else to do the story if the reporter couldn't have done a full job of it?
Oh! So I'll finally be able to add donation links to my apps? And links to both play store and f-droid??
Currently, if you do that, the review fails for "Payments policy violation" (for the donation link at least, link to fdroid should be allowed, although I think I had some issues in the past...)
I think it's more useful to think in context of vertical integration. Mobile phone software is very tightly vertically integrated such that a single company can control components that historically other companies were able to compete at providing.
Apple and Google not only control hardware, kernel, OS facilities, user land, software loading/download facilities, but also payments, code signing, and even venture into other forms of banking.
On top of that, they're actively blocking potential competitors to many (most) of those pieces.
"Google also can't:
Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first"
Huh, why does that sound familiar epic games store?
I’m confused, I’ve been using 3rd party app stores on Android for years now?
From the article:
> Google will have to distribute rival third-party app stores *within* Google Play
Right now you have to side-load 3rd party apps.
Also Google must:
> * Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play 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
Not as a first class citizen.
* It's only recently you could have unattended updates of applications.
* It was not possible to distribute additional app stores in Google play, third party stores had to utilize sideloading which includes "scary" warning messages
* Googles terms and conditions essentially required the play store be installed by default by vendors.
Epic being the true antitrust commisionaire, having achieved more than entire groups of countries .
The ruling may be on the extreme side but it's still good to see things moving back to a more open software world. Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better . (Just like how browser choice in the EU did not move the needle).
Any rule enforcing openness should be celebrated, as a win to change the culture of walled gardens that has plagued technology for decades
>Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better .
ehh. We can discuss that all day. All I care is that any apps they don't allow should be able to find or make a platform that does allow it. Freedom doesn't mean that others will think like me and choose that freedom over familiarity.
Next up in the TODO list:
Force Google to open source Google Play Services and allow users to choose which which publisher's version of it they want to use.
That thing has become a huge proprietary spyware blob and without it the device is nearly useless. It's nearly obligatory for developers to code against it.
> 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)
Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
The browser should have been the distribution mechanism and user agent sandbox for mobile apps. Unfortunately both OS platforms owned their own browsers and would benefit from controlling app distribution under the guise of protecting app quality.
It is also exceedingly ironic that browsers played such a key role in wrestling control from the dominant windows platform to the benefit of Apple and Google.
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit.
Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers.
Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.
Epic was never "the hand of good faith" in these fights. They just want more money.
From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?
According to Wikipedia [0]:
> The events and initial actions on Epic's lawsuit against Google were brought on the same day as Epic's suit against Apple, but Google stressed the legal situation around their case is far different. Google asserted that the Android operating system does not have the same single storefront restriction as Apple's iOS, and thus allows different Android phone manufacturers to bundle different storefronts and apps as they desire. Google said they are negotiating with Epic Games far differently from Apple in their case.
I have no idea how the two cases are different, but Google said they were. And it sure sounds like Google specifically chose to take a different path, which ended up being a loser. Cautionary tale of hubris and stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
Crazy that Google and Apple are in the top 10 of game revenue companies without making any games.
> Google also can’t: Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first or Offer developers money or perks not to launch their apps on rival stores.
Very funny, that's Epic's bread and butter on PC.
Is the judge epic for their ruling, or is judge employed by Epic? ;D
I have a feeling, that headings become more ambiguous over time. OK this one is with capital E on Epic. Still fun to think about the other meanings.
Maybe stores should simply be uncoupled with mobile OS. Imagine a store, that has apps for various OS, run independently from the OS' vendor, Google, Apple, whoever. Then we wouldn't have all the issues with the vendors behaving like dictators about what can be on _their_ stores, because it is no longer their stores. Only question: How does it get financed and maintained, if not big tech is behind it?
That's what Steam is. It works on both Linux, Windows, and macOS, and it sells apps for all three platforms. Funding isn't a problem, as Valve takes a cut of sales. The whole thing is only possible though since the supported platforms are not locked down.
For this to work in any reasonable manor it should work more like package repos in Linux.
There is absolutely no point to any of the 3rd party app stores, if you cannot install your banking, travel or payment apps from them. Who cares about an EPIC app store, where games are ever so slightly cheaper, if you can't install the app for your government ID from that store?
There needs to be multiple store fronts, with the option of adding different package streams so that any store can carry any app. This is obviously going to be to confusing for the average person and will make the app stores unusable for most.
The whole idea of alternative app stores is idiotic, unless companies and governments aren't being forced to distribute their apps on all of them. Maybe you can have two app stores at the same time, but then I question what we actually gained. I don't want 3rd party app stores because Google and Apple are overcharging, I want them because I don't trust Google and I want to be able to use an Android phone while not giving Google ANY information at all. But I really don't care that Apple and Google are charging developers 30%, I really don't. I have only a few paid apps, and they where price just fine.
It's straight depressing that Google, who has allowed loading third party apks since 2008, is the one punished when their competitor with higher market share doesn't even allow that.
I just can't help but think of a world where every company pulled an apple. Not being able to install your own applications on your own device is horrifying to me, and we were just one android (apparently stupid in hindsight) decision away from that being the case.
Imagine if that was the case with pcs. 30% obligatory apple tax or you can just go release your own phone.
If the court is less consistent in its ruling than perhaps any tennager in the US in this case then I wonder what other cases they are adjudicating
Google will do an uno reverse on the EU
If Apple's store isn't illegal then they will switch to their model. Android will lock out alternative stores completely in response.
They'll probably rename Android to something else and say its a new, more secure OS.
I'm not trying to be provocative or a downvote magnet here but does anyone actually have a concrete response to the concerns Frederighi raised about sideloading and privacy / phishing protections three years ago?[1]
Isn't it like very, very obvious that while you and I and everyone else on HN appreciate the power of sideloading, average users are more easily tricked into bypassing the protections of well-run app stores?
[1] https://youtu.be/f0Gum8UkyoI
Looking to the day we can finally say goodbye to Google's SafetyNet.
That abomination should die in a fire and apps should be forbidden to use it, banking apps included.
>Google also can't offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Gee I wonder if these sorts of rules also apply to Epic Games
But... It is already open to third-party stores and even APK side loading. Who understands what's going on here?
Which mean Tencent (Epic's parent company) will finally be free to open their app stores world-wide.
Why does this link to the verge and not the original source? I hate clickbait.
Android is not an open platform because in practice everything works on Google Play Services.
What's illegal. 1. Monopoly power plus 2. anti-competitive conduct.
Apple and Google both have #2 but only Google has #1.
"Illegal monopoly" is strange terminology. What does it mean. Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive conduct by a party with monopoly power is illegal.
Isn't Samsung's Store and F-Droid all ready third party?
This is truly baffling to me. Google is far from doing anti-competitive bs than Apple does. You can't install anything on an apple device without the whims of Apple. This calls into question whether you actually own your Apple device or not when you can't even tinker with it. Simply put, you don't own an Apple device.
Google's Android is pretty much as open as things can be, yes, from hardware manufacturers' perspective it is a shit deal that you have to install their entire suite of apps if you want to use Play Store. Yes, this thing is anti-competitive but Epic wasn't fighting along these lines.
It is not fair to call Google anti-competitive for wanting to maintain their supremacy on their own app. It's like you have a shop selling your brand's merchandise and you are very successful but are told by a judge to allow other brand's merchandise on your acquired customers. Truly wild.
With Android, you can always install competing app stores on your phone by going to the website of the developer. It makes zero sense to want to make things "more" open. Yes, Google warns you that you are installing an app from other location, but that is on the user man and is good opsec on google's part to not let any random user install apps from anywhere. There should be a little barrier to prevent apps from being installed and google's os does that.
There are plenty of apps in India which operate outside the purview of Google's Play Store and doing business of billions of $. Google and Apple both don't allow gambling apps on their platform but there are so many companies here that are distributing their apps through their website and succeeding and they are a big business at that. I doubt there are any other examples in the world of apps succeeding doing billions of $ in revenue outside Apple/Google stores.
The actual action needs to be taken on Apple's App Store who are the biggest offenders of walled garden and not letting users make a choice. I am pretty sure, if the users got to know that they are paying more for apps on their apple devices than their web counterparts, they would be up in arms. Devs cannot even convey to their users that they are paying more when they buy through app store.
This is ridiculous.
I should also be able to sell any food I make at home at my local grocery store.
So many comments advocating for centralized tightly controlled technology.
Capitalism and freedom are truly dead in the name of small short-term conveniences. Or, most probably, invested interest in increasing share value for big-tech.
If the USA decides that monopolies are the only way it is going to lose the tech race. The death of AT&T created some chaos but a lot of opportunities for technological and business advancement.
Breaking all monopolies is the only way forward for a healthy competitive economy. Big share value gains just show that the system is not working. That there is no competition, no choice, just a rent-seeking economy that reduces value at the cost of everybody.
Google will win on appeal.
Good. Android will continue becoming s*t show.