201–210 of 607 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
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)…
Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time.
I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers.
The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.
> Google appears open yet is closed in practice How is Android closed in practice?
Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
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!
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.
> 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.
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.
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 f…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the…
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.
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!
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.