The Verge: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in Android app store

[Yurinka]

Apple won but Google lost. It makes no sense.

Maybe it's because Android has like 70% of the market share:

"open/closed system" is not a legal distinction you're talking pure shit here.

If iOS is a "closed system", that's *more* of a monopoly.

A monopoly is when someone has all or almost all the market share of a certain market, and uses that market power to make some unfair tactics (called monopolistic actions) to block or prevent potential competitors to compete against them.

As seen above, Apple has 30% market share and Android 70%. So Google would be the one closer to have a monopoly, not Apple.

And now I'm worried what it means for consoles. You know Tim is going to fight Sony and MS next and MS will welcome him with open arms leaving only Sony as the "bad guy"

As of now, nothing. It will take some time until all them make their Android mobile gaming stores, etc. Mobile is a way bigger market than consoles, so probably won't mess with consoles, where very likely they already have a good deal. On top of that, Sony is an Epìc Games shareholder, so Epic won't mess with them at least publicly.

Verga? lol

It was a joke

 

[anonpuffs]

The same can be said about console exclusives then.

no?

 

[ethomaz]

That makes no sense. Apple doesn't even allow 3rd party stores, while Google does.

Closed system vs open system.

Android is an open system that can be used by anybody in any hardware… Google seems to be doing anti-competitive actions here.

IOS is a closed system that can be used only by Apple own hardware (or these that Apple licensed but they never did it).

That is why Epic have a better lawsuit against Google than Apple.

Same for console closed systems.

 

[ethomaz]

"open/closed system" is not a legal distinction you're talking pure shit here.

If iOS is a "closed system", that's *more* of a monopoly.

IOS is not where close to have any monopoly

Even in US (the strongest Apple region) it has around 50% of the smartphone market… in Global market it is way lower.

 

[Satoru]

Closed system vs open system.

Android is an open system that can be used by anybody in any hardware.
IOS is a closed system that can be used only by Apple own hardware (or these that Apple licensed but they never did it).

That is why Epic have a better lawsuit against Google than Apple.

So the logic here is: If you have software that is open source and allows you to even bypass the native apps, you're anti-consumer. But if you're a closed system that requires every single transaction to run through "the mothership", then it's cool and not anti-consumer.

Got it.

 

[Impulse]

Quality of evidence matters too.

Google was caught in 4k deleting evidence in this case. That cannot play well in a jury trial.

 

[ethomaz]

So the logic here is: If you have software that is open source and allows you to even bypass the native apps, you're anti-consumer. But if you're a closed system that requires every single transaction to run through "the mothership", then it's cool and not anti-consumer.

Got it.

Closed/open system has nothing to do with open source.

You can have a closed system that is open source or a open system that is not open source… open source just mean you share the source code and there are several licenses and some doesn’t even allow to fork or use the code in others software.

In an open system the owner of it doesn’t have any power against a 3rd-party to use it like that 3rd-party wants.
The Juri ruled that Google is anti competitive forcing the use of their store and in-billing system to be used.

In a closed system it can can be used only by what the owner wants and it can have only what the owner wants… so they can choose which store or in-billing system they want to their closed system.

Maybe Google should had make a closed system if they wanted to force they own store/billing system to be used instead a open system.

 

[Satoru]

Closed/open system has nothing to do with open source.

You can have a closed system that is open source or a open system that is not open source… open source just mean you share the source code and there are several licenses and some doesn’t even allow to fork or use the code in others software.

Thanks for educating me on concepts I understand.

Android is open source, and the distribution Google develops is a semi-open system. iOS is closed source, and a closed system.

Edit: As an example

• Android is Open Source
• Google's distribution of Android is Semi Open Source, since their proprietary apps are closed source, as well as parts of their kernel (afaik)
• Samsung's distribution of Android is Closed Source iirc

In an open system the owner of it doesn’t have any power against a 3rd-party to use it like that 3rd-party wants.
The Juri ruled that Google is anti competitive forcing the use of their store and in-billing system to be used.

But this is incorrect. You have plenty of Android distributions without Google's store or in-billing system.

In a closed system it can can be used only by what the owner wants and it can have only what the owner wants… so they can choose which store or in-billing system they want to their closed system.

That is very cute, but here's two problems with that theory: One, the same could be said about Windows, yet Microsoft got fucked (rightfully so) because they were embedding OS functions into Internet Explorer. By your logic, they do not have to allow you to even install Steam, and that would be a perfectly acceptable consumer move. It isn't. Second of all, if this wasn't clear enough, google does not mandate any vendor to install their apps or their billing system. This is publicly documented:

As an open platform, Android offers choice. You can distribute your Android apps to users in any way you want, using any distribution approach or combination ofapproaches that meets your needs. From publishing in an app marketplace toserving your apps from a website or emailing them directly to users, you’renever locked into any particular distribution platform.

[...]

Unlike other forms of distribution, Google Play allows you to use the In-app Billing service and Licensing service. The In-app Billing service makes it easy to sell in-app products likegame jewels or app feature upgrades. The Licensing service helps prevent unauthorized installation anduse of your apps.

The only time you're required to use Google's billing system is if you're using the play store. Further confirmation:

Google Play's billing system is required for developers offering in-app purchases of digital goods and services distributed on Google Play.

and here:

• Developers charging for app downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment for those transactions.
• Play-distributed apps requiring or accepting payment for access to in-app features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods (collectively “in-app purchases”), must use Google Play’s billing system for those transactions unless Section 3 or Section 8 applies.

I don't want to come up as a "Google is good" kinda guy: They are as evil as the other big software vendors. However, it does seem very curious and downright anti-competitive that Google is being forced to do something Apple is not. More than impacting their closed ecosystem, it will impact their bottom line, which will impact their investment in the product.

 

[reziel]

After they talk heavy loses against Apple few year ago they can finally commemorate a victory

This isn't anything to happy about he's going to do a 180 and go after Playstation and Nintendo next. Tim Sweeney is one of the biggest turds in the industry and the fact that California was the one holding the keys on this doesn't make this any better.

 

[Satoru]

This isn't anything to happy about he's going to do a 180 and go after Playstation and Nintendo next. Tim Sweeney is one of the biggest turds in the industry and the fact that California was the one holding the keys on this doesn't make this any better.

I want to see the tune if/when PS and Nintendo are forced to open their systems to 3rd party stores and billing systems, while Microsoft and Apple will be laughing their way to the bank.

 

[flaccidsnake]

IOS is not where close to have any monopoly

Even in US (the strongest Apple region) it has around 50% of the smartphone market… in Global market it is way lower.

It's a 2-player market. They're one competitor away from a literal monopoly, which isnt even the legal standard. That is close.

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

 

[ethomaz]

That is very cute, but here's two problems with that theory: One, the same could be said about Windows, yet Microsoft got fucked (rightfully so) because they were embedding OS functions into Internet Explorer. By your logic, they do not have to allow you to even install Steam, and that would be a perfectly acceptable consumer move. It isn't. Second of all, if this wasn't clear enough, google does not mandate any vendor to install their apps or their billing system. This is publicly documented:

Windows is a unique example hybrid of Open and Close Platform... it is somehow in the middle because the same product is distributed with different EULA across devices.
So depending where you are using Windows it can be Open or Close.

Microsoft Windows happens to be a unique case of an Open as well as a Closed Platform. While users are free to install any and all software applications on a Windows desktop on an intel device, without any negative repercussions, the same cannot be said of Windows on ARM. Windows RT, as it is known is the same software but a closed platform with limited installation permissions. Only products developed by Microsoft can be installed on these devices.

iOS is a closed platform.
Unlike MacOS that is an open platform.

While the Mac OS X by Apple exercises a lot of restrictions on the App Store, developers are allowed to distribute apps by side-stepping the App Store. Unlike the iOS, Mac OS allows app installations outside of the App Store, users are not restricted in downloading softwares from external platforms.

Android is an open platform.

 

[Satoru]

Windows PC is a unique example hybrid of Open and Close Platform... it is somehow in the middle because the same product is distributed with different EULA across devices.
So depending where you are using Windows it can be Open or Close.

iOS is a closed platform.
Unlike MacOS that is an open platform.

Ok, and? This does not refute anything I said.

Windows as example is not a valid one to analyse either Android or iOS.

It is. Windows is (for the most part) an open platform with closed-source code. Android is an open platform with open-source code (minus proprietary apps and proprietary kernel). As OS' go, they are "fairly" similar. The odd one out is iOS.

 

[ethomaz]

Ok, and? This does not refute anything I said.


It is. Windows is (for the most part) an open platform with closed-source code. Android is an open platform with open-source code (minus proprietary apps and proprietary kernel). As OS' go, they are "fairly" similar. The odd one out is iOS.

I think you are not understanding the base.

I read the verdict and seems like the issue is that Google is making deals (paying) apps to use only the Play Store and it billing system.
Epic won these two arguments.
But lose others two that are the side loading and security arguments (that is basically what they sued Apple too).

Again the Apple case doesn't have any evidence of Apple using it dominant position to force (pay) apps to use their App Store or billing system because iOS is a closed system that doesn't have option to others stores or billing systems (you can't side load).

That is the key difference people are not getting.

iOS closed system allows apple to chose witch stores and billing system the system can have... it is their own choice.
So they don't need to make deals or pay apps to use their stores or billing system... they don't need to use their market position for that.
If you want to be in iOS you have accept and follow the rules of a closed system.

So Epic easily lost in the court to Apple.

But Android is different... it is a open system where you can put anything you want... there is no rule that deny the use of other store or paying system.
So in that case Google used it market dominance to force apps to use the Play Store and it billing system.
That is the key of what Epic won over Google.
Because Google is making deals / paying the apps to use only the Play Store / Billing system.
Google can't use the argument that you can't use other Store / Billing system because Android is a open system.... they can't easily force apps to follow it own rules because it is not a closed system like iOS.

In that case Google had to make deals and that is being saw as anti-competitive by the court.

The whole arguments from Epic that can be used to sue Google due open system Android have not power for any closed system like iOS.
Closed platform and open platform is basically the core difference between them.
And that affects how the business model works.

Closed system = you have to accept the rules of the owner... so you have to use the store and billing system of the owner if the owner put that in the rules.
Open system = you can do whatever you want and that includes using another store or billing system the user wants.

Google tried to avoid the weakness points of being an open system making anti-competitive deals with apps.
They can't put a rule that everybody needs to use their own store and billing system.
That is the why they lose in the court.

And that is due the nature/core differences between open and closed systems.

 

[Satoru]

I read the verdict and seems like the issue is that Google is making deals (paying) apps to use only the Play Store and it billing system.
Epic won these two arguments.

Funny that epic engages in the same exact activities.

Again the Apple case doesn't have any evidence of Apple using it dominant position to force (pay) apps to use their App Store or billing system because iOS is a closed system that doesn't have option to others stores or billing systems (you can't side load).

Your whole paragraph is nonsensical. You said "there's no proof they are setting houses on fire other than them setting houses on fire". Smartphones have become ubiquitous to our daily lives, to the point where you can't get a job without access to one. Apple stiffles competition, google doesn't.

But Android is different... it is a open system where you can put anything you want... there is rule that deny the use of other store or paying system.

No there isn't, and I proved to you that. The rule is that if you avail of the Play Store as your distributor, you need to avail of their billing system for your in-app purchases. That's it. Nothing prevents other stores from offering their own payment options.

So in that case Google used it market dominance to force apps to use the Play Store and it billing system.

Wrong, they didn't. Again, did you read what I posted? It's public. Google doesn't force developers to use their billing system unless they want to use their own CLOSED STORE to distribute those. Read again:

The Verge: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in Android app store

Apple won but Google lost. It makes no sense. Maybe it's because Android has like 70% of the market share: "open/closed system" is not a legal distinction you're talking pure shit here. If iOS is a "closed system", that's *more* of a monopoly. A monopoly is when someone has all or almost...

icon-era.com

Because Google is making deals / paying the apps to use only the Play Store / Billing system.

"Because Epic is making deals / paying the developers to use Epic Games Store"

Google can't use the argument that you can't use other Store / Billing system because Android is a open system.... they can't easily force apps to follow it own rules because it is not a closed system like iOS.

So the logic is: A system that allows for multiple storefronts, and even allows for distributions without proprietary software, is somehow taken as anti-competitive, whereas one that doesn't allow that escapes unscathed.

 

[ethomaz]

Funny that epic engages in the same exact activities.


Your whole paragraph is nonsensical. You said "there's no proof they are setting houses on fire other than them setting houses on fire". Smartphones have become ubiquitous to our daily lives, to the point where you can't get a job without access to one. Apple stiffles competition, google doesn't.


No there isn't, and I proved to you that. The rule is that if you avail of the Play Store as your distributor, you need to avail of their billing system for your in-app purchases. That's it. Nothing prevents other stores from offering their own payment options.


Wrong, they didn't. Again, did you read what I posted? It's public. Google doesn't force developers to use their billing system unless they want to use their own CLOSED STORE to distribute those. Read again:

The Verge: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in Android app store

Apple won but Google lost. It makes no sense. Maybe it's because Android has like 70% of the market share: "open/closed system" is not a legal distinction you're talking pure shit here. If iOS is a "closed system", that's *more* of a monopoly. A monopoly is when someone has all or almost...

icon-era.com

"Because Epic is making deals / paying the developers to use Epic Games Store"


So the logic is: A system that allows for multiple storefronts, and even allows for distributions without proprietary software, is somehow taken as anti-competitive, whereas one that doesn't allow that escapes unscathed.

A closed system follow the owner rules.
A open system follow the user rules.

It is very simple.

They is no issue in iOS if Apple says you can only use their own Store/Billing system.
It can have issues if in Android Google tries to force (using it marketing position) apps use their own Store/Billing system.

That is a simple resume of the whole discussion.

And yes according withe court Google is using their marketing position for that... Epic proved that in the court... they even showed that Spottily is only in Play Store / Billing system because Google allowed them to not pay anything to Google to use Play Store / Billing system but not any other Store / Billing system.

They showed others evidences that Google were making deals just to apps use their own Play Store / Billing system.
The court accepted the evidences.

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree that is what happened.

So the logic is: A system that allows for multiple storefronts, and even allows for distributions without proprietary software, is somehow taken as anti-competitive, whereas one that doesn't allow that escapes unscathed.

If you are a closed system you don't have to allow others in your system.
If you are a open system you already allow others in your system.

In neither case there is any anti-competitive issue.

Until in a open system you use your marketing position to force apps only to use your own Store / Billing system.
If you are using your marketing position to not allow others stores / billing systems to receive the App then you have a case of anti-competitive tatics.

 

[Snes nes]

I think the future could likely be multiple storefronts on a singular game device. Locking a game system to one store means that singular device manufacturer can force a certain price upon products. That’s why it’s good to have multiple consoles atm but in the future let’s say nintendo or Xbox have a console monopoly they can for the prices to be whatever they want or take a cut of said games profits (let’s say like 70%.) The issue with that though is well that would mean gamepass and google play could come to consoles. If google play comes to consoles I don’t think that’d be good for people who actually want to play video games lol.

 

[flaccidsnake]

"open platform" and "closed platform" are colloquialisms with no legal significance.

 

[ethomaz]

"open platform" and "closed platform" are colloquialisms with no legal significance.

Closed platform are set by contract agreements with fully legal significance.
If you wish to be there you need to accept and sign terms of what the owner of the platform allow you.

Apple just had to show the iOS terms that Epic signed to make their case fail.

 

[flaccidsnake]

Closed platform are set by contract agreements with fully legal significance.

pure nonsense. stop posting.