Pardon me, didn’t Apple win the exact same suit by Epic? Apple’s app store is fine, but Google’s isn’t?
[deleted]
Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
81–90 of 1001 posts
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems the reasoning is that Google isn't really competing against the iOS app store, in which sense they don't look much like a monopoly, but just against all the potential other android app stores, in which sense they do look a lot like a monopoly. Seems sort of ironic that Apple avoided this argument by just not having any alternative app stores at all to be anticompetitive with.
It's more nuanced than that. Apple successfully argued that the combination hardware+software experience of iOS and its app store is "the product", since people don't buy iOS for e.g. what bootloader it uses, but rather the wide ranging ecosystem experience and the apps that Apple certifies and verifies through a "feature" of "the product". Without such tight integration of the hardware and software, the product lose…
So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#83This is huge! I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. Might be time to revisit them...
This seems a great excuse to blame Instead of procrastination to me.. So 70% revenue was not enough to get something off the ground?
[deleted]
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
But can Epic appeal then against Apple?
I imagine Google will appeal, and the whole shebang will be decided by the Supreme Court, applying to everyone.
This is probably where it is going. And yeah, it may cause some type of regulation of OS-integrated app stores and payment systems.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
Not really. At least Windows Mobile and PalmOS let you install anything very easily. It was just difficult initially finding apps.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing it's because this was a jury trial and Apple's wasn't.
Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?
We're dealing with the same laws, but not the same evidence.
There wasn't much evidence in the Apple case that Apple was explicitly taking action to disadvantage or harm third-parties, and there was even less evidence that Apple utilized their economic power to ensure their dominance.
If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity.
The evidence in Google's case showed that leadership was so paranoid about a third-party store rising to prominence, since the platform technically allowed it, they were constantly wheeling and dealing to suppress competition.
Google essentially wanted to have their cake (side loading is fine! Android is open!) while eating it too (The Play Store dominates).
And they accomplished this by spending a lot of money, and giving certain developers better deals than others, etc.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
Not really, if you consider Symbian pre-smartphone OS.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
I really meant before smartphones and the way software works on desktops/laptops.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
It seems the reasoning is that Google isn't really competing against the iOS app store, in which sense they don't look much like a monopoly, but just against all the potential other android app stores, in which sense they do look a lot like a monopoly. Seems sort of ironic that Apple avoided this argument by just not having any alternative app stores at all to be anticompetitive with.
Google was really a victim of their own success. By making Android an open platform, they increased adoption by smartphone OEMs, but on the flip side it made them liable in this very specific case.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
Downloading an APK from a website is just as easy as installing an exe on windows from some site, and millions of barely tech-literate people do that every day