Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 607 posts

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#361

Post by mvdtnz »

SllX wrote: post #210
akira2501 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> I just want to install the damn software and be done with it

So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#362

Post by mark336 »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92
ethbr1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is appealing this case to the Supreme Court, seeing as how they ruled for Apple it wouldn't come as a surprise if they also win.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#363

Post by FridgeSeal »

al_borland wrote: post #178
sigmar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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 wo…

Are devs going to be forced to support all the app stores too? Will they need to go through N separate registrations, N separate support processes?

I can see a good number of devs going “eeuuuggghhhhh” and just letting an app rot, just only publishing to one store, rules-be damned, or just going to iOS.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#364

Post by saghm »

tiledjinn wrote: post #344
saghm wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the precedent they point to was categorically ruled _not_ an illegal monopoly in a similar court case. I don't disagree that there should be more competition in for platforms, but I also can recognize that the legally binding opinion on that disagrees with mine.

Which case is that? Because that's not how the Apple ruling went.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple, the ruling definitively stated that Apple does not need to add third party app stores to its platform, and the appeal upheld that ruling (with the Supreme Court declining to hear further appeals, meaning the case is finished). The only change Apple had to make is supporting third-party payment platforms.

> Judge Rogers issued her first ruling on September 10, 2021, which was considered a split decision by law professor Mark Lemley.[63] Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts brought up against them in the case, including Epic's charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut and Apple's prohibition against third-party marketplaces on the iOS environment.[64] Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.

> ...

> The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court.[79] Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023.[80][81] Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.[82]

> On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.

Given that the claim I was responding to implied that it was foolish of Google to cite Apple due to them being a monopoly, can you elaborate on why you think this ruling somehow was an obviously bad idea for them to argue as a precedent? To repeat myself from before, I'm _not_ expressing personal opinion about whether iOS and Android should be allowed to operate the way they do, but asserting that the court ruling does in fact state that the current way Apple handles third-party app stores is legal.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#365

Post by fasa99 »

nijave wrote: post #227
carlosjobim wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores. Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar…

To build out this metaphor a little more, John Deere makes the tractor (phone OS) which pulls machinery (apps - plow, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc). This would be John Deere controlling which equipment the tractor may or may not be allowed to pull, only machinery allowed by John Deere who gets a 30% cut for the privilege. This would be a great deal for Johnny D!

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#366

Post by noitpmeder »

zmmmmm wrote: post #219
tmtvl wrote: post #6

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.

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 paym…

This is an insane take. Android handles side loading amazingly.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#367

Post by 3np »

TheAdamist wrote: post #207
clhodapp wrote: post #4

> 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.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#368

Post by adam_arthur »

reissbaker wrote: post #347
eru wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?

Yeah the code being open-source vs closed-source didn't have anything to do with the legal ruling here. The judge claimed that the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store are not competitors (LMFAO), and therefore Google can be held liable even if Apple wasn't. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... (FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple du…

They aren't direct competitors.

You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls.

Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store.

Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive.

It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill.

Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them?

Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching.

If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#370

Post by makeitdouble »

lolinder wrote: post #243
makeitdouble wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the TFA > Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store) > Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store > Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store > Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespectiv…

Yes. I install everything I can through F-Droid or sideloading and only fall back on the Play Store for a few things like banking apps which couldn't care less about Google's monetization rules.

Thanks for the clarification.

On banking apps, I wonder how isolated they are. My bank offers insurance services, and they can be paid through other means than my bank account. But I can't contract them in my app, it's only available by phone or through the web site.

I wonder if they just took the safest route and removed any "buying" operation from their app instead of having to fight Apple or Google later (used both apps, had same limitations)

Post reply on HN