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

[Entropi]

iOS should remain a closed ecosystem. Android should be as open as possible.

Customer can decide which is best for them. The Perfect balance. I love closed ecosystems.

 

[ethomaz]

pure nonsense. stop posting.

Just truth.

That is how closed platforms works.
You guys just can't accept the reality.
And try to make up your own rules lol.

 

[Darth Vader]

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.

And yet this doesn't refute what I said. Epic engages in the exact same behaviour.

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's not how the world works, especially when considering smartphones.

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.

On the bold, I beg you to read what I wrote. Google is not forcing apps to using their store. Fuck, I have two stores on my phone right now, and on one of them I can pay without google's intervention.

 

[ethomaz]

And yet this doesn't refute what I said. Epic engages in the exact same behaviour.


That's not how the world works, especially when considering smartphones.



On the bold, I beg you to read what I wrote. Google is not forcing apps to using their store. Fuck, I have two stores on my phone right now, and on one of them I can pay without google's intervention.

You clear is not understanding.

Google is using it market position to force apps to only use PlayStore and it own billing system.
That is in the case.

What you describe is the side loading... try to find and use your alternative store / billing system to the apps that Google made a deal... or better the apps the Epic used in the court case.
The behind scheme deals that Google are doing (paying) just to the popular apps use their own Store and billing systems... that is what Epic won... that makes it anti-competitive.

 

[flaccidsnake]

iOS should remain a closed ecosystem. Android should be as open as possible.

Customer can decide which is best for them. The Perfect balance.

if anything android has gotten less open as the market develops. There is no arbiter of what Android "should" be other than Google. It's misleading to even talk about Android in the abstract because a fully open source distribution of Android is a joke compared to what most people actually use on their actually shipping smartphones. In practice there's very little difference between Android and IOS in terms of "openness". These are both proprietary platforms with intense ad targeting, user surveillance, and a single first class app store administered by the vendor.

 

[flaccidsnake]

Just truth.

That is how closed platforms works.
You guys just can't accept the reality.
And try to make up your own rules lol.

the contours of what you're calling a "closed platform" is 100% made up in your head. it has no generally agreed definition, much less a legal definition.

 

[ethomaz]

the contours of what you're calling a "closed platform" is 100% made up in your head. it has no generally agreed definition, much less a legal definition.

I should have made in my head too.

Agreements and Guidelines - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

Apple Developer Program License Agreement - Agreements and Guidelines - Support - Apple Developer

Terms and conditions that govern membership in the Apple Developer Program.

developer.apple.com

Imagine if it had no legal power
You guys lives in a bubble.

 

[ethomaz]

All in my head.

One of the evidences used by Epic against Google.

List of Internet Providers

Welcome to our directory of Internet Service Providers, which is split into local categories based on location and sorted by country and area.

isp.page

Not just that... Epic proved that Google offered lucrative agreements with hardware manufacturers (like Samsung) in exchange for excluding alternative Stores / Billing systems from their systems (you can still side load alternative stores / billing systems but here we will enter in the same case that Microsoft lose with Internet Explorer decades ago because Play Store come installed in these systems without any easy way or support to use alternative stores).

 

[flaccidsnake]

I should have made in my head too.

Agreements and Guidelines - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

Apple Developer Program License Agreement - Agreements and Guidelines - Support - Apple Developer

Terms and conditions that govern membership in the Apple Developer Program.

developer.apple.com

Imagine if it had no legal power
You guys lives in a bubble.

I don't know why you're linking to this, or why you think it is relevant. The FTC doesn't make a distinction between "open" and "closed" products in evaluating antitrust. The basic idea of a "closed" platform implies anti-competitive practices, which is why I'm giving you a hard time.

 

[ethomaz]

I don't know why you're linking to this, or why you think it is relevant. The FTC doesn't make a distinction between "open" and "closed" products in evaluating antitrust. The basic idea of a "closed" platform implies anti-competitive practices, which is why I'm giving you a hard time.

Because in a closed system you follow the agreement you signed that have legal weigh… you need to sign these to put your app there.

And you come saying it is not lol

On an open system like Android you sign an agreement to use the Play Store and it billing system but to put your app on it you sign nothing… you go create an app and side load it without even tell Google.

There are big differences.
In one your app is under an agreement you signed that have full legal weight.
The other you have no agreement.

Apple can say they don’t want your app in their system without any legal issue like they don’t allow alternative stores / billing systems… to have your app there you need Apple to allow it and you have to sign a legal agreement.

But Google can’t do that due the open system nature of Android… there is nothing in legal terms that Google can do.

So they choose another path… to sign financials deals with Android hardware companies and/or app developers to exclude/avoid alternative stores / billing systems.

The court see that as anti-competitive practices after the evidences showed by Epic.

In a closed system where you agree legally to the platform terms Epic has no case at all… neither the owner of closed system needs to make deals that can be considered anti-competitive… after all the developer already signed your own legal terms to have their app in your closed system.

 

[Would_you_kindly]

I think it's the fact that Apple only does that on its own hardware. Google was making deals to shut out competition on all android devices, not just their own.

They make android ... It's their OS , manufactures can always take a crack at making their own OS & do what they want with it lol

 

[flaccidsnake]

The fact that Apple only makes iOS for their own hardware is itself extremely anticompetitive. This isn't something that helps their case in relation to Google/Android. It's called vertical integration (which both these companies are very involved in).

 

[Would_you_kindly]

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.

They'll just stop making hardware at that point why go through the trouble of manufacturing hardware & losing money on it (or making a very thin profit) if you're going to have other companies stores making money from it

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The fact that Apple only makes iOS for their own hardware is itself extremely anticompetitive. This isn't something that helps their case in relation to Google/Android. It's called vertical integration (which both these companies are very involved in).

You mean the same vertical integration Microsoft is doing buying 3P publishers to fold their operations and revenue into Xbox/Microsoft Gaming? The same vertical integration Microsoft utilizes in the PC space between Windows, OS bundling deals with OEMs, Direct X SDK, Visual Basic, and a closed-off proprietary kernel? A pipeline where they have complete presence in every single step (hardware, software, SDKs, middleware, storefront, manufacturers, standardization)?

Apple designs iOS for their devices. That is not anticompetitive; you don't even seem to know what that word means, just throwing it around because it sounds impactful.

Also from what I understand, vertical integrations are not inherently anticompetitive; they potentially CAN be, but trying to hard associate the concept with anticompetitive practices itself is dishonest. There are lots of reason why Apple can argue their implementation is not anticompetitive, they can even technically point to companies like Nintendo as an example in some instances.

There is nothing inherently anticompetitive about a closed ecosystem.

 

[ethomaz]

The fact that Apple only makes iOS for their own hardware is itself extremely anticompetitive. This isn't something that helps their case in relation to Google/Android. It's called vertical integration (which both these companies are very involved in).

So you basically think 99% of the industry is anti competitive.
What Apple does is what the whole industry does.
And it not anti-competitive in any way... it is legal.

Other are open to make competition with their own hardware and software.
But if you want to use the Apple hardware and software you need to legally agree to their rules.

 

[flaccidsnake]

You mean the same vertical integration Microsoft is doing buying 3P publishers to fold their operations and revenue into Xbox/Microsoft Gaming? The same vertical integration Microsoft utilizes in the PC space between Windows, OS bundling deals with OEMs, Direct X SDK, Visual Basic, and a closed-off proprietary kernel? A pipeline where they have complete presence in every single step (hardware, software, SDKs, middleware, storefront, manufacturers, standardization)?

Apple designs iOS for their devices. That is not anticompetitive; you don't even seem to know what that word means, just throwing it around because it sounds impactful.

Also from what I understand, vertical integrations are not inherently anticompetitive; they potentially CAN be, but trying to hard associate the concept with anticompetitive practices itself is dishonest. There are lots of reason why Apple can argue their implementation is not anticompetitive, they can even technically point to companies like Nintendo as an example in some instances.

There is nothing inherently anticompetitive about a closed ecosystem.

Yes sure, and Microsoft is also a monopoly. Vertical integration itself is not necessarily anticompetitive, just like conventional growth is not necessarily anticompetitive. Regulators have to qualitatively assess actual market factors to determine if the scale of monopoly allows a company to control the market. This is called "foreclosure":

Vertical Issues : The Federal View

Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to be here again. This is my third year in a row participating in this program.

www.ftc.gov

 

[Snes nes]

They'll just stop making hardware at that point why go through the trouble of manufacturing hardware & losing money on it (or making a very thin profit) if you're going to have other companies stores making money from it

I think if that happens then we could still get game consoles but it'll just be a device with a specailized os on it like the steamdeck is. It'd end up being a service war that will could potentially collapse due to the cost of keeping those services online all the time.

 

[flaccidsnake]

I think if that happens then we could still get game consoles but it'll just be a device with a specailized os on it like the steamdeck is. It'd end up being a service war that will could potentially collapse due to the cost of keeping those services online all the time.

???

Are you saying there isn't enough server capacity?

tbh I think the idea of unlocked devices running a specialized OS would be the best way to game. there's no reason for multiple hardware platforms anymore. sony could release the PS5 os on a thumbdrive and my PC is just a playstation.

 

[Would_you_kindly]

I think if that happens then we could still get game consoles but it'll just be a device with a specailized os on it like the steamdeck is. It'd end up being a service war that will could potentially collapse due to the cost of keeping those services online all the time.

They already do... Playstation has its own based on freebsd , Nintendo has its own based on freebsd & android & Microsofts is a custom build of windows

 

[Dr Bass]

Title more family friendly now.

It was funny while it lasted!