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.
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.
Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
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 how rotten the courts have become.
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”.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
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.
Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge legally-enforced advantage.
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.
Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular web browser on the Apple app store
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.
Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and their distribution network.
unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they sign....its not open like Google claims....
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).
> 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.
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.
- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
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.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and Apple sued to hell until they comply.
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.
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
There's no F-Droid in Play Store
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.
The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for everyone.
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
They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the right direction.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
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.
> percentage
Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
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?
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
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.
> 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
> 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.
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.
If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
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.
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.
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.
> My phone
Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
In the EU only
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
> 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_...
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
There are a myriad of points which make this metaphor a insufficient argument at best (at worst intentionally obfuscating the nature of digital publishing and digital marketplaces as having similar physical analogues) in favor of the current app store landscape:
1. AFAIK anyone can manufacture and distribute CDs
2. The argument that anything below the cost to manu CDs is acceptable only holds water if you have an inefficient market that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of digital distribution.
It was 30% vs whatever parties like Symbian asked at the time. Or other existing platforms like consoles where developers were left with less than 70%.
Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did involve a lot of expensive publishing
How generous!
That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
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
Makes sense that privilege was taken away, given that Google is facing legal consequences for abusing their position in the mobile app distribution and payments markets.
That sounds more akin to a standard exclusivity agreement and seems much different (at least to me) from what Google got in trouble for.
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?
That’s because people don’t actually give a rats ass about competition directly. They care about _cost_ AND _convenience_. Steam is great on both fronts and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
> 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...
Yes, they are. This competition means an enormous boom in quality content has been produced that would have never existed otherwise because of the competition.
Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
I don't agree. TV/movie programming, and the services they run on, are not fungible. If I have a show that I like that's only on a certain platform, it doesn't matter how good or bad that platform is, I need a subscription.
The problem is tying the content to the platform. All studios should be required to license their content under RAND terms to all other streaming platforms. Then the streaming platforms can actually compete on objective measures like price, reliability, video quality, offline watching, etc.
In this case I don't think we've gotten better services. I still believe that the gold standard for a streaming app has been Netflix (well, at least until a few years ago; it's started going downhill IMO). All the others have significant problems, whether with reliability or quality, or with UX. They've certainly gotten better over time, but I don't think I'd consider any of them pleasant to use.
For the longest time, legally, movie studios could not own movie theaters. We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more laws like that, and we need them to apply to streaming platforms too.
Yeah, and Crunchyroll, and Viki and a lot of other services most people probably don't know about.
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 exactly the competition that keeps PC from having the hiked prices the likes of Switch/XBox/PS5 stores and having to pay $15/mo to play games with your friends online.
I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC in comparison to what the alternative is.
I literally don't have anything but Steam installed.
No it isn't, the competition is great and is lowering prices across the board, and no arbitrary censorship exists.
The desktop games market is much heathier and less dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
Aye and it’s a fucking shit show.
Down with all “stores”!
Points at the netflix app, through which you can install bloons Tower defense
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?
Streaming services
Streaming services what? I can download every streaming service from Play Store.
I like my app store called "the internet."
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'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.
> 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)
And what happens at the end of the 3 years? If apps are pulled, are people who downloaded the apps through those alt-stores going to lose access to updates, causing security issues or a support nightmare when the users don't see new features?
We'll see Android users needing to have multiple app stores just to get all the apps they want/need, along with the updates. From a user experience point of view, that sounds worse, even if the competition is meant to make things better.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Google is the developer.
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.
> 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.
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.
Bumping Droidify because it's great!
Oh cool ! Will the apps installed through froid be recognized in droidify ?
Yes
So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via F-Droid? Seems complicated.
They have apk's in the github release's tab, I assume you can just install those instead https://github.com/Droid-ify/client/releases
> the better F-Droid client
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
Droidify used to be much better because the official F-Droid client had a lot of problems, but now the latter is alright
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...)
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
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
So, then, Apple is next?
No, apple won on the exact same claims in front of a different judge.
That's an unfair characterization of the situation.
Epic v Google was decided in a jury trial, whereas Epic v Apple was decided by a judge (as preferred by both parties).
The other big difference is that Tim Cook wasn't caught trying to destroy evidence, so the judge in that case had no reason to sanction Apple.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...
https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/05/01/lets-not-just-cha...
In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not legally a monopoly there in part because of competition from Google, Nintendo, and Stadia (lol). A suit from another company could result in a different market determination and a different outcome without being inconsistent with that ruling.
Both suits were brought over the same things, but the actual arguments presented were different.
Google will win on appeal.
I should also be able to sell any food I make at home at my local grocery store.
Only fair.
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.
Good. Android will continue becoming s*t show.