I just can't help but think of a world where every company pulled an apple. Not being able to install your own applications on your own device is horrifying to me, and we were just one android (apparently stupid in hindsight) decision away from that being the case.
Imagine if that was the case with pcs. 30% obligatory apple tax or you can just go release your own phone.
If Apple's store isn't illegal then they will switch to their model. Android will lock out alternative stores completely in response.
They'll probably rename Android to something else and say its a new, more secure OS.
Isn't it like very, very obvious that while you and I and everyone else on HN appreciate the power of sideloading, average users are more easily tricked into bypassing the protections of well-run app stores?
Now do Apple.
Gee I wonder if these sorts of rules also apply to Epic Games
Apple and Google both have #2 but only Google has #1.
"Illegal monopoly" is strange terminology. What does it mean. Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive conduct by a party with monopoly power is illegal.
Google's Android is pretty much as open as things can be, yes, from hardware manufacturers' perspective it is a shit deal that you have to install their entire suite of apps if you want to use Play Store. Yes, this thing is anti-competitive but Epic wasn't fighting along these lines.
It is not fair to call Google anti-competitive for wanting to maintain their supremacy on their own app. It's like you have a shop selling your brand's merchandise and you are very successful but are told by a judge to allow other brand's merchandise on your acquired customers. Truly wild.
With Android, you can always install competing app stores on your phone by going to the website of the developer. It makes zero sense to want to make things "more" open. Yes, Google warns you that you are installing an app from other location, but that is on the user man and is good opsec on google's part to not let any random user install apps from anywhere. There should be a little barrier to prevent apps from being installed and google's os does that.
There are plenty of apps in India which operate outside the purview of Google's Play Store and doing business of billions of $. Google and Apple both don't allow gambling apps on their platform but there are so many companies here that are distributing their apps through their website and succeeding and they are a big business at that. I doubt there are any other examples in the world of apps succeeding doing billions of $ in revenue outside Apple/Google stores.
The actual action needs to be taken on Apple's App Store who are the biggest offenders of walled garden and not letting users make a choice. I am pretty sure, if the users got to know that they are paying more for apps on their apple devices than their web counterparts, they would be up in arms. Devs cannot even convey to their users that they are paying more when they buy through app store.
This is ridiculous.
Capitalism and freedom are truly dead in the name of small short-term conveniences. Or, most probably, invested interest in increasing share value for big-tech.
If the USA decides that monopolies are the only way it is going to lose the tech race. The death of AT&T created some chaos but a lot of opportunities for technological and business advancement.
Breaking all monopolies is the only way forward for a healthy competitive economy. Big share value gains just show that the system is not working. That there is no competition, no choice, just a rent-seeking economy that reduces value at the cost of everybody.
Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.
Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
It would be informative to know—by jurisdiction—the stats of what type of smartphone OS the key deciders had in their pockets.
- 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 irrespective of Play Billing
Removing those restriction on billing in the app will probably have way more impact in the end.
- Yup, this is the steering that Apple "lost".
>Starting January 16, developers can apply for an entitlement to provide a link within their app to a website the developer owns or is responsible for. The entitlement can only be used for iOS or iPadOS apps in the United States App Store.
There's so many stipulations to getting this approved that it's hard to call it a win. Just more delays
- good, but ofc irrelevant on Apple for now.
- And good. Somewhat relevant for Apple but the stipulations above make this hard.
I mostly hope this precedent can be used against future Apple proceedings to get that store opened up.
Epic v Google was a jury trial, and also there was plenty of evidence in discovery to Epic’s favour[1], and also there was evidence that “Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly gave false info to court”[2].
There was a fair amount of coverage and analysis among legal commentators about why Google lost. It’s worth reading for people interested in trial law.
(Especially read [2] about how Google sought to hide conversations from discovery. It’s cringeworthy.)
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
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 from anticompetitive behavior in the "open" market you choose to create. .
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?
XBox is only made by Microsoft, there are no XBox OEMs, and Microsoft can do whatever they like to their devices. They're not forcing any manufacturer to do anything, because they are the manufacturer. Same with iPhones, Play Station consoles and so on.
Windows computers and Android phones are manufactured by many companies, and Microsoft and Google were engaging in anticompetitive behavior by forcing everybody who wanted their OSes to do certain things, and that's the problem here.
It helps a lot that they are the only sellers of the XBox. With Windows they were strong-arming third party manufacturers. The situation is similar with Apple and iOS. Because it’s “their” phone they have more control. Google was telling other manufacturers of android phones what to do, which crossed a line.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ruling that gets them there is A-OK with them, consequences be damned. Personally I find that unfortunate. I enjoy well-reasoned debate that thinks through the logical consequences of various policy decisions and how it affects everyone, not just end users exactly like themselves.
No, people are correctly pointing out the fact that this is blatantly unfair. You are claiming that 2+2=5 because a judge said so.
If you are concerned about the "consequences" maybe you should start thinking about how open platforms are now legally disadvantaged to closed platforms.
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 they don't want to.)
I get that this isn't relevant from a legal perspective. But so what? I can talk about where I want the laws to go.
It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for playstation game sales. They make both the software and devices.
Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling indicates the other stores must have access to play store apps as well.
Additionally, Google royally messed up this entire case from the start by being so openly egregious. Amateur hour sending emails about buying a company to shut them up from suing you.
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, from the perspective of what feels reasonable to me (regardless of the law): Android has always been more open than iOS, and available to many different manufacturers and organizations. It's a bit weird that this openness means that they are required to be even more open, while a platform that has always been much more closed can remain that way.
This lawsuit is focused on Google. It's existence or the facts conveyed within do not provide any cover to Apple. They don't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or from being covered by the same judgement.
Do you feel this way when we put a murderer away? I mean, "his murder was illegal, but yet, some people still get away with it?! What is this injustice?!"
> so I guess that's fair.
Would you prefer court cases to involve several dozen defendants at once? Would that be more "fair?"
I thought Apple did face the same lawsuit, against the same plaintiff, and Apple won.
Having the second ruling be consistent with the first? Following precedent? This is terrible for competition where two companies in the same market can live under different rules in the same jurisdiction.
Apple's monopoly is effectively blessed now.
I want Google to make ability to side load an actively supported first class feature of the platform. There can be a warnings and additional security measures (scanning, permissions boxing etc if necessary) but nothing that in practice has the effect of preventing a commercial entity from shipping a functional app outside of their store.
Huh? You download an apk and click a security prompt to allow non-store installations and it installs them, it's not particularly hard or complicated.
Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.
When two cases have different defendants making different arguments, the same plaintiffs making different arguments, and obviously different sets of facts and evidence, yes, those cases can have different outcomes.
Though obviously its quicker to lookup the market cap of the defendants, if you actually want to understand why the outcomes are different, it requires engaging with the evidence and arguments.
When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.
There is Supreme Court precedent for this
Google is (was) free to only ship Google Play on Pixel phones, just as Apple only ships the App Store on their iPhones. What Google wasn't allowed to do was to "bribe" and force carriers and OEMs to favor Google Play over other stores. This is what they did, and now they have to face consequences.
The business models are very different here. Apple makes their own phones with their own OS, and can do with them as they please. In Android land, however, it's other companies making the phones, using a custom fork of the open source Android operating system, and Google is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by pushing these companies into Google Play if they want to get any of the other Google services on that OS.
Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading.
Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision.
---
IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary.
Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it).
Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.
Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
Edit: Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted? I am legitimately not trolling, I just want to be able to factor this in my decision in November because I think it's an important issue and I don't see a "direct vote" on it taking place any time soon.
I also found the following resource: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36877026
Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations.
Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1].
> Can the downvoter please explain why you downvoted?
Didn’t downvote. But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic. (I’d also be shocked if there is any overlap between undecided likely voters and HN users, the latter who tend to be informed.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store.
Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform.
I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.
Maybe the committee will operate within the confines of this outline to set more structure and make this workable, but it seems very handy-wavey in how this is going to work...
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.
Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.
Google Play is full of trip wires, you trigger one and your account is gone, your career of independent developer is over
Patreon faces an existential crisis right now: use in-app purchases or the app will be removed. Game streaming wasn't banned right up until it was. No amount of support has helped with these red lines - not even the committee they allegedly created for developers to challenge the rules. Their support has only helped in the absurd cases, like demanding WordPress implement IAPs or rejecting dictionaries for containing swear words.
It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring their own software and services over that of their competitors as part of their agreement with phone makers.
Apple makes and sells phones, including the OS, and services for those phones including the App Store. They’re not telling Samsung they must favor Apple services in order to receive an iOS license because they don’t license iOS to Samsung for Samsung’s phones.
Google and Apple both chose their own business plans here, which is their right, but it also put them on different legal footing when Epic came calling in Court because in theory, Android was supposed to be an open ecosystem that third party app markets could thrive on and it just wasn’t that, in particular because Google was putting their thumb on the scale.
How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
Did his wife sign an Apple NDA that applies to family members? Or does he not want to anger Apple out of fear of retaliation towards his wife? Either way, I don't see how the word "ethics" applies to either situation.
It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.
Currently, if you do that, the review fails for "Payments policy violation" (for the donation link at least, link to fdroid should be allowed, although I think I had some issues in the past...)
Apple and Google not only control hardware, kernel, OS facilities, user land, software loading/download facilities, but also payments, code signing, and even venture into other forms of banking.
On top of that, they're actively blocking potential competitors to many (most) of those pieces.
Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first"
Huh, why does that sound familiar epic games store?
> Google will have to distribute rival third-party app stores *within* Google Play
Right now you have to side-load 3rd party apps.
Also Google must:
> * Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play 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 irrespective of Play Billing
* It's only recently you could have unattended updates of applications.
* It was not possible to distribute additional app stores in Google play, third party stores had to utilize sideloading which includes "scary" warning messages
* Googles terms and conditions essentially required the play store be installed by default by vendors.
The ruling may be on the extreme side but it's still good to see things moving back to a more open software world. Google is probably not afraid of it, they know that their users will keep using their services because they are better . (Just like how browser choice in the EU did not move the needle).
Any rule enforcing openness should be celebrated, as a win to change the culture of walled gardens that has plagued technology for decades
ehh. We can discuss that all day. All I care is that any apps they don't allow should be able to find or make a platform that does allow it. Freedom doesn't mean that others will think like me and choose that freedom over familiarity.
Force Google to open source Google Play Services and allow users to choose which which publisher's version of it they want to use.
That thing has become a huge proprietary spyware blob and without it the device is nearly useless. It's nearly obligatory for developers to code against it.
Epic v Google was decided in a jury trial, whereas Epic v Apple was decided by a judge (as preferred by both parties).
The other big difference is that Tim Cook wasn't caught trying to destroy evidence, so the judge in that case had no reason to sanction Apple.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...
https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/05/01/lets-not-just-cha...
Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
It is also exceedingly ironic that browsers played such a key role in wrestling control from the dominant windows platform to the benefit of Apple and Google.
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit.
Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers.
Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.
From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?
> The events and initial actions on Epic's lawsuit against Google were brought on the same day as Epic's suit against Apple, but Google stressed the legal situation around their case is far different. Google asserted that the Android operating system does not have the same single storefront restriction as Apple's iOS, and thus allows different Android phone manufacturers to bundle different storefronts and apps as they desire. Google said they are negotiating with Epic Games far differently from Apple in their case.
I have no idea how the two cases are different, but Google said they were. And it sure sounds like Google specifically chose to take a different path, which ended up being a loser. Cautionary tale of hubris and stuff.
Very funny, that's Epic's bread and butter on PC.
I have a feeling, that headings become more ambiguous over time. OK this one is with capital E on Epic. Still fun to think about the other meanings.
There is absolutely no point to any of the 3rd party app stores, if you cannot install your banking, travel or payment apps from them. Who cares about an EPIC app store, where games are ever so slightly cheaper, if you can't install the app for your government ID from that store?
There needs to be multiple store fronts, with the option of adding different package streams so that any store can carry any app. This is obviously going to be to confusing for the average person and will make the app stores unusable for most.
The whole idea of alternative app stores is idiotic, unless companies and governments aren't being forced to distribute their apps on all of them. Maybe you can have two app stores at the same time, but then I question what we actually gained. I don't want 3rd party app stores because Google and Apple are overcharging, I want them because I don't trust Google and I want to be able to use an Android phone while not giving Google ANY information at all. But I really don't care that Apple and Google are charging developers 30%, I really don't. I have only a few paid apps, and they where price just fine.
In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties.
In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
Epic Store on Windows can't be accused of this monopolistic behaviour because Windows is not locked down and alternatives to the platform's distribution exists. Epic Store is one of those beneficiaries.
Windows and Epic's deals demonstrates there exists a market with competition and choices for developers and users. Developers can chose to take Epic up on their deal. Users can chose to use the Epic Store or not. The courts ruled that this choice does not effectively exist on Android because of all the dealings that Google did to prevent competition.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that Google suppresses alternative pricing models in the Play Store. You can not like a proposed alternative payment structure (as a developer), or not want to use Epic Store on Android. It would be great if the market could decide on what it wants here, instead of Google preventing any competition.
If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine.
Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.
The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to prevent Google and Apple from together duopolizing the entire mobile phone space, but this is not that.
For example, Borderlands 2 (on PC) was Steam exclusive for something like 7 years and nobody seemed to mind. Borderlands 3 (on PC) was EGS exclusive for 6 months and people got very upset about it.
How is it not better to have a game available on two launchers within 6 months than to have a game available on only one launcher for 7 years?
This is silly too though, it's no different to Steam both are consumer hostile systems where you own nothing. It's just Steam had the early years where it built up good will through some sales.
They got a few customers from their giveaways - they should stick to those and further improving their store, maybe some people will actually want to use it.
An exclusivity deal from an upstart could be how they actually enable competition to exist.
>Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field
of course not. But enemy of my enemy. As of now their arguments benefit the consumer. If they ever do form a monopoly and keep doing these tactics, we can talk lawsuits.
That's some beautiful corpspeak.
"Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"
That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.
That is literally what competition should look like.
> Google also can’t:
> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.
Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?
You are giving them a free pass.
- Not fully understanding something, but having an opinion about it, with no attempt to learn more.
- "All companies are evil" yawn
Next time, can you try a more exciting criticism of Epic? We've been going through these lawsuits for four years now, every easy original thought has been thought and poasted about, you need to think a bit harder for your next comment.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Can't you buy dyson vacuums at the dyson store, at target, and on amazon?
Personally, this is making android phones a lot more interesting.
So what, it's how the music world operates as well. Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube have virtually all that one could ever want to listen (and I'd guess Youtube has the biggest catalog from all the pirates LOL).
I'm all for more mandatory-licensing options, particularly the movie/series space is long overdue for getting a few butts thoroughly kicked - all the streaming sites combined are now more expensive than a cable bill.
The horrors of free will and choice.
Down with all “stores”!
You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
If every store had to make every app available, then sure I'd have choice and maybe that could be super cool.
But nobody's talking about that. We're talking about a world where major corporations will make their apps available only through their own stores and can refuse to do refunds and make canceling subscriptions a nightmare.
I don't see any increased choice at all. All I see is corporations forcing their own stores, that will probably be far less consumer-friendly, and users won't have any increased choice at all.
I got an iPhone so that I wouldn't have to deal with the Android ecosystem. I go to the app store, install an app, and get on with my life.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Imagine if Spotify had a Spotify store that required device id tracking for their ad network.
Epic could already to their own Play Store, but they didn't/couldn't. Freaking Amazon had their app store and they failed. Samsung also has their own App Store and how many non-Samsung phones run it?
The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.
Realistically, this never happens. making a platform isn't some cheap endeavor like a landing page for a website. Most people will stay on the play store and use play services. Those with more skin will consider alternative stores, and then lastly some will make their own platforms.
> For a period of three years, Google will permit third-party Android app stores to access the Google Play Store's catalog of apps so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users. For apps available only in the Google Play Store (i.e., that are not independently available through the third-party Android app store), Google will permit users to complete the download of the app through the Google Play Store on the same terms as any other download that is made directly through the Google Play Store. Google may keep all revenues associated with such downloads. Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store. Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology is fully functional.
I think it's a tough call though. I get it, the court ruled Google had a monopoly, and this is supposed to prop up 3P app stores temporary until they can get footing.
The fact it's opt out is... good? I mean at least there's an option. But it also feels they are also forcing devs hands by making it opt out.
Not sure how that will work for paid apps, but for free apps...maybe it's good?
I have mixed opinions here though (as a user and as a developer)
The other is a Civil damages case.
Their format, rulings, and outcomes are not comparable.
Nothing in the civil case precludes Apple from receiving a criminal complaint.
And Android WearOS is still hard for side-loaded stores to work with at all without developer debugging mode I think and is tightly integrated with the phone stuff.
If you're a new company and lack any monopoly power to abuse, I don't see the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing alternative strategies to compete.
Presumably because that's not a question that generally needs answered. A lot of people growing remembering microsoft getting sued have this flawed idea that monopoly always equals bad. There are plenty of legal monopolies, companies don't get in trouble until they start doing illegal stuff to keep their monopoly. A lot of areas naturally favor a monopoly, that's not illegal or necessarily bad.
As for whether someone else will win, maybe, maybe not. Look up res judicata.
Keep in mind - the judge deciding the market is x will not affect whether it is considered the same set of facts. So if you filed a case with the same facts, or very similar facts, you wouldn't escape res judicata on the grounds that you think the market is different.
You would have to come with a different claim than federal antitrust law (state unfair competition law in a different state or something) or significantly different facts.
In any case, i strongly doubt apple is next given the state here.
Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.
Why? Plenty of judges rule without partisan predictability. This case doesn’t seem to have any more politics involved than any federal case.
If you have evidence of something interesting, sure, bring it up. But “maybe there are other interests involved, find the evidence for me” isn’t a conversation.
Given the FTC going after Amazon, I think it's a relevant question to consider. these cases will inevitably influence if Apple is gone after, but who goes after them will depend a lot on the US's government.
I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate issue.
The solution to this remains the same as ever: curation of software packages. You can install any app you want, but you're probably going to use some front-end to manage that (Play Store, App Store). It's up to those platforms to curate what apps they host, and up to the user to delegate safety c he checks to platforms they trust.
Curation is the status quo, the only thing that would change is that people could choose to trust another entity to curate their apps.
Given current lawsuits, Valve does neither.
I’m pretty sure the likes of Adobe and Meta would be literally foaming at the mouth in excitement over the potential for this.
It's a strange strategy to me, but I guess I may underestimate however many people will just stick to whatever pops up first.
The facts are not just out there and whoever happens to have the better facts on their side wins. Litigators have to be able to identify and interrogate relevant facts, prepare witnesses and documents to introduce them, then shape them in a convincing enough way that they can argue the facts and law are on their side.
Hell, even appellate lawyering is really all about the facts in the end. We have legal doctrines and lines of authority for this or that legal proposition, but the letter of the law only receives its full shape in light of the various fact patterns they’ve been tested by. (This, by the way, is where the modern Supreme Court tends to show its cracks. Arguments before the Supreme Court are almost inevitably a step or two removed from the facts of the actual case that the Court is supposed to be adjudicating. Yes, appellate courts and the Supreme Court have to take into account that whatever they rule is going to have precedential effect and other courts will look to their decisions to guide their own work. But it’s striking how often like 7/9 Supremes deflect argument away from the particular facts of the case they agreed to review and focus on hypotheticals and “first principles” (which they don’t even agree on amongst themselves) and so on. Yet they always trumpet that Article III jurisdiction requires there to be a live case or controversy. Which they promptly themselves ignore. Can’t let, you know, actual judging get in the way of one’s shaping of the law!)
You start off strong but for the first two and a third paragraphs maybe about two and half paragraphs in total, you wrote we’re not actually in any disagreement. So… yes.
I’m not really co-signing the rest but I’m also not in any mood to argue about the off-topic jabs against SCOTUS at the moment.
I had just read the transcripts from yesterday’s oral arguments and was feeling annoyed at a longstanding complaint I have about SCOTUS (pre-dating the Roberts Court as well). Mea culpa.
Let's say you install 15 apps on F-Droid. Every time you want to upgrade your apps, you were forced to manually initiate, and then sit through, each app update as they're installed in the foreground. This was because of deliberate limitations in Android.
Whereas on the Play Store, you could hit one button to update all of your installed apps and the installations happened in the background.
I believe it was after Google was threatened with lawsuits that they modified Android to be less tedious when it comes to managing and upgrading apps outside of the Play Store.
But yes, non-Google devices make this way more difficult, e.g.: Xiaomi devices actually has a scary warnings and they trigger at each reinstall. Also, they messed up something in the install APIs so you can't update apps unattended, needing to trigger the popup to install at each update.
So yes, in general, this is not the fault of Google but third-party companies.
Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can update them without needing my manual approval.
Gonna strongly disagree on that one.
1. Apple is not next, which is the main point
2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
None of your points seem to matter as to whether Apple is next or not?
Sure, I agree with that point. I disagree with the rest of your framing why, which was a dismissal that "Apple won on the same claims in front of a different judge". The judge in Epic v Google didn't render the verdict (as that was performed by the jury), while the judge in Epic v Apple did.
> 2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
Sanctions mattered as far as explicitly informing the jury that they were permitted to assume the worst against Google. If you don't think that might have impacted the jury's decision, I don't know what to say. The fact that the judge who later handed down the punishment thought that the sanctions were necessary should also be relevant to any harshness associated with his ruling.
> And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction” — one that would tell the jury they should proceed with the understanding that Google destroyed evidence that could have been detrimental to its case.
> Instead, there will be a “permissive” jury instruction — the jury “may” infer that the missing evidence might have helped Epic and hurt Google.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/1/23984902/judge-james-dona...
> 3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
Yes, Donato decided the punishment (to the extent that the law gave him discretion to do so), but it was a jury that decided that Google exercised illegal monopolistic behavior. The judge doesn't have discretion to completely disregard the jury's verdict, as per the seventh amendment.
The aforementioned behavior on Google's behalf certainly didn't help garner any favor with Donato.
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) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water...
To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open.
[0] - AARD Code, anyone?
[1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements
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.
I certainly agree, the problem from the legal standpoint is that stuff google was doing was too close to stuff that other companies have gotten in trouble for one way or another.
> The best outcome would be to force both to open up more.
Agreed.
1. AFAIK anyone can manufacture and distribute CDs
2. The argument that anything below the cost to manu CDs is acceptable only holds water if you have an inefficient market that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of digital distribution.
Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did involve a lot of expensive publishing
That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
We point to PC gaming as a horrible state of affairs no one in the mobile world wants; but it really isn't. There were a half-dozen storefronts a few years ago. Today: Everyone is on Steam. There's EGS if you play Fortnite. I think Rockstar still has their own stuff, maybe? A couple blizzard games are still only on battle.net. Xbox has their app for Game Pass, but all their games are also on Steam. That's... it. Steam won. Its never not won.
It turns out that markets love centralization. Its an efficiency thing.
Mobile will be the same. Epic will have their store. A few others, maybe. You'll still download all the apps you care about from the App Store. Your user experience won't change (unless you want to give Fortnite a try).
What might change is: It gives a pressure point developers can leverage against Apple to negotiate better terms. Their services revenue will drop... maybe.
I say "maybe" because opening platforms and reducing prices also tends to grow the overall pie. See, there are companies like Netflix who refuse to support Apple IAP for subscriptions because the terms are unfavorable to their business. If those terms became more favorable: 10% of a million is more than 30% of zero. There are companies like Adobe and AutoDesk that refuse to build any meaningful software for the iOS and iPadOS platforms, because (in part) they would be willingly sacrificing the agency of their business to Tim Cook (for 70% of all sales; a penance). With storefront options: You might have to download the Adobe Storefront, but you'd, at least, have After Effects. No one reasonable would pick "not having After Effects" over being given the choice between using After Effects with Adobe's inevitably shit launcher/storefront and not.
Many launchers came to be, with half assed community features. They didn't want a thriving marketplace, they wanted a piece of the pie. People hated them and they died.
Recently epic store came, with a billion dollar Corp behind, and they are fighting the long battle. The free games are a nice thing (usually older offers or curated indie stuff), but the exclusive business sucks. Luckily it seems unpopular, and fewer brands esnt to adopt it - some are so strong they can do it, but others found out that they can lose their loyal costumers and fade out, eg Borderlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Ope...
So, 2007-present, that's when.
Android is acknowledged as a Linux distribution. Linux, also known as GNU/Linux, incorporates significant GPL-licensed code. By contrast, Apple has used BSD derivatives for a codebase, and BSD licenses, while F/OSS, are not "viral" in the way the GPL is, so Apple is not required to redistribute source code, or submit their patches upstream, and they can make proprietary additions anywhere they like.
From a Twitter message by Rubin in 2010.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/
> the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
https://www.osnews.com/story/136235/google-further-guts-the-...
For example, Google Maps isn't limited to Android, even though it could drive more Android sales. Instead, it's available on iOS because the potential market loss outweighs the benefits of exclusivity.
Companies are unlikely to limit apps to their own stores if the cost of shrinking their user base is too high. The key factor will be whether consumers are willing to switch platforms for specific apps.
In contrast, installing another app store is just a few taps. Consumers want the app, and then will be forced into a situation where they've got 10 or 15 different app stores installed to support the 20 apps they use, because no corporation wants another corporation taking a percentage of payments or controlling app review.
It will be lovely.
We'll probably see 3-4 major stores that manage to get enough mindshare for people to actually install them, and a lot of apps available on a 2-ish-store subset of them.
I told my family many years ago now that they get no tech support for issues caused by downloading things outside of the App Store. I will download from outside of the App Store, but I have zero confidence that the vast, vast majority of people will ever be able to not get fooled, and if they do, they won’t be able to fix it.
With an Apple problem, my relatives call Apple, and the Apple tech support person remotes into their phone and walks them through a solution. Or gives them a refund.
And the thing with phones and computers these days is that they are your identity, they are your wealth, they are your life. You lose control of that, and you are in for a world of hurt. Someone can clean out your brokerage and bank accounts. The stakes are too high.
In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.
In general, in the courts, it's a lot easier to ask a judge or jury for someone to stop doing a thing (blocking their software from being pre-installed) vs. forcing someone to do something they're not currently doing (allowing any third-party app stores).
This is actually very insightful given the history between Google and Samsung with Tizen.
Couldn't you reword that as allowing unsigned and self signed software to be installed? You can push your own apps to your iOS device but iirc Apple artificially limits the number of self signed apps that can be installed
So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.
The possible future where that plan goes off the rails is if developers start pulling their software off the App Store and stop following Apple’s rules because they can. Right now they can’t while remaining iPhone developers.
Like I said, there’s a lot that’s a dumpster fire with developer relations between Apple and App Store developers, but you always know where Apple stands:
1. Apple
2. Apple’s Customers
3. Developers
Yeah I’d like them to loosen up some of the restrictions, but it’s still to my advantage as an iPhone customer that developers who choose to develop for iPhones from the smallest to the very largest to even the government are forced to deal with Apple on Apple’s terms to distribute software.
Apple’s dumpster fire in developer relations is also only half the story over the last decade; a lot of the largest developers of the most popular apps on the App Store have also been at the forefront of innovating new and creative ways to try and circumvent even the smallest limitations on iPhones leading to Apple spending the better part of the decade coming up with new APIs, new entitlements and new legal contracts walking this tightrope between enabling or keeping enabled useful APIs while also protecting user privacy and security. It’s not an easy task they’ve taken up, and short of the government literally outlawing most of the surveillance-oriented business practices a lot of Apple’s peers engage in (practices which the government also benefits from), this is basically the next best thing.
It seems like not requiring either one would be the more neutral, agreeable position to take.
It’s like putting an android apk file on your website for an app.
If you’re giving it away for free to friends, sure.
If not, how do you sell it? How do you stop people stealing it? How do people find out about it?
Obviously, you the answer is usually “you write your own installer / updater” and do your own marketing.
Maybe that’s fun, and there’s something to be said for owning the entire stack… but it’s a loooot of work and probably not a reasonable financial decision to make.
and as a last bit of irony, we're already seeing those backdoor deals being opened up as we see how there was a point to the price fixing argument Wolfire accused of. They could have just let Overgrowth sell on their website, and now Valve is playing a game of cat and mouse on whether they re getting mass arbitration or class action.
>and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.
Steam is another account I don't care much for personally. And steam has always allowed for third party accounts to be needed. You think then GTA 6 launches in 2029 on PC or whatever that people are gonna complain about needing a Rockstar account?
A lot of that "discourse" is just turf wars and entitlement.
It's not unlike everyone here that loves to champion Apple even when the article is about Apple being the most openly evil it can possibly be, except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
and look how they equated to sales. Just world fallacy isn't working out.
GOG may be more consumer friendly, but from what I could read EGS is the 2nd biggest PC platform in the US.
>except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.
they've done plenty, just behind closed doors. They have their own interesting lawsuit situation that HN conveniently buried a few weeks back.
It's everyone else v Google and/or Apple.
Ironically, forcing this onto Google might be the best thing for Android, as it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple, but costs Google too much revenue to ever do it if left to their own decision.
It’s hard to believe the best way to compete with Apple is by being more open then they are.
If that worked, we would all be running some unix os on our phones.
It’s clearly an utterly false premise.
This is going to hurt google and do literally nothing to Apple, except perhaps scare some people into the “saftey” of its curated ecosystem.
iOS is based on Darwin which is BSD based, and Android is based on Linux, which is heavily inspired by Unix.
So technically, we are "all running some unix os on our phones"... perhaps you mean some open-source OS? Even then, Android markets itself as being open-source (although I imagine they must add some closed source stuff on top of it).
Apple inherently never sent these emails. There’s no deals they made because they were closed from the get go.
Google created a market of “android app distribution”, and then put its thumb on the scales so it always wins. That is why Google lost and Apple didn’t lose (as much).
but the non-partisan bailey answer is along the lines of "android promised freedom, IOS never did".
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 worse, even if the competition is meant to make things better.
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.
The store can plan for what they'll do 3 years later, so progressively injecting IKEA competitors in the mix and getting people to know the other options could lead to a durable business. Especially if IKEA loses enough sales that they'd want to keep selling their goods in third party stores to keep shelf space from competition.
To get out of the metaphor: if alternative app stores become big enough to thrive on their own from this initiative, app makers will keep pushing their apps other there. In particular this whole scheme assumes some level of compatibility, so the burden should be light enough.
What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.
I'm a bit surprised a community as tech savvy as this has frustrations over the idea of using multiple platforms. decentralization by its nature means you'll have fragmentation of content. But it protects against the worse ending of Youtube price hiking mulitple times a year and doubling down on adblock users.
Most developers use Google's app signing service to ensure that a loss of the signing key will not strand their users on old versions. In that case, it would not have been possible for Amazon distributed apps to use the same signing keys. I say would not have, because these new requirements mean it will actually now be possible since Amazon could distribute the updates published to Google Play, and doing resigning shenanigans would throw the baby out with the bathwater (allowing users to seamlessly switch app stores)
Tangentially, how does Android handle signing key rotation/expiration?
Look at it a different way: if Google themselves did this as opt out, developers would be screaming bloody murder about how this wasn't the terms of service they agreed to.
Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
The problem is tying the content to the platform. All studios should be required to license their content under RAND terms to all other streaming platforms. Then the streaming platforms can actually compete on objective measures like price, reliability, video quality, offline watching, etc.
In this case I don't think we've gotten better services. I still believe that the gold standard for a streaming app has been Netflix (well, at least until a few years ago; it's started going downhill IMO). All the others have significant problems, whether with reliability or quality, or with UX. They've certainly gotten better over time, but I don't think I'd consider any of them pleasant to use.
For the longest time, legally, movie studios could not own movie theaters. We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more laws like that, and we need them to apply to streaming platforms too.
cool. and Netflix's binge culture works against them for subscribers who only want one show. A new season hits and I can spend $10-20 to watch it and leave.
It will depend on your perspective. If you watch a bunch of TV and movies everyday then you got a worse deal. But it also makes sense you'd pay more than me, who's last venture was 1 month of Paramount for the Knuckles Show (and I didn't even pay. I went to a friend's place).
>We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction.
I mean, it's not like the current endgame of AMC or Cinemark has turned out better. I paid $14 for the saddest hot dog I had ever eaten earlier in the year. someone will always try to fleece you if they have the chance.
Hard disagree. The rate of quality content that I actually want to watch is no higher than it was back when I could view it all on Netflix, but the difference now is that in order to watch it all I'd have to have four different subscription channels.
I'm honestly not even sure the content quality isn't lower now that everyone is producing it with the idea of selling their still-unprofitable streaming platform. Amazon sinks a billion dollars per season into Rings of Power and it shows—the showrunners are visibly torn between trying to tell a compelling story and trying to meet executives' demands that they compete with HBO and milk the Peter Jackson connections for all they're worth.
I don't need everything all in one place. Piracy was always the cheapest option if you wanted to spend time fiddling, but the current official means is much more convenient than the cable contract lock-in days.
The same forces that led to wide spread adoption of open source Android would have also led to wide spread adoption of closed source Android. Namely, the need for a fully touch optimized OS with enough reach to have a robust app ecosystem to compete with iPhone (and the need for it quickly so no time for home grown solutions). All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform. It could have just as easily been closed source Windows Phone had Microsoft released 3 years earlier.
Google could have also licensed it to manufacturers for free and funded it Play Store and mobile search revenues.
This is an interesting point, but it now does make me ask other questions.
Mostly about historical players... Specifically, Symbian and Blackberry's OS.
Both are good cases to consider because Symbian was pretty close to your suggested model (and I'd argue, feature wise, was a benchmark for some of Android's initial state, as well as likely helping the decision for the preferred app language to be a form of Java for the sake of adoption by existing players.)
> All the non-Apple manufacturers were always going to coalesce around a single platform.
My other statements aside, I feel like Android really started stagnating/enshittifying various policies once WP was fully killed. And TBH I hope the DOJ brings up the treatment of Youtube on WP8/10 if they go ahead with antitrust action [0]. Pre-downloading maps? Here Drive (part of standard WP app suite) let you do it way before others. A polite non-nagging "you're going more than 5 over" beep? Showing speed limits whether or not I have a destination set? Still don't have those in base apps.
And wow, WP never had me deal with all of this carrier bullshit more than once per phone, vs every Android update is a new "oh hey uncheck all these boxes for crapware or try to find the way we changed the 'dismiss and do not show again (but really till the next update)' workflow".
[0] - Short version, The level of shenanigans around Google 'approving/maintaining' a youtube app meant that for a lot of my time in WPland, I could only view youtube videos through a browser. [1]
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
we solved that issue long ago: make the APK a thin client to the actual service you keep on a server. Devs don't care where you download your APKs anymore. that's what the 90+% piracy took from us: the idea of premium, offline games.
advertising is tricky, but if we're being honest with ourselves: google play has only been a hinderance to discovery these days. My ideal pipeline is uploading to F-droid and throwing an APK release on Github as well.
[1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
If you want to watch the Lion King, Disney has your balls in a vice grip.
I would be perfectly fine with a hundred different UXes, if they could all serve me Lion King and I had an option to pay for it. Then it would be an actual decentralization. A syndicated system where I can access a movie or song on any platform (of my choice), and the copyright holder gets paid appropriately would be an approach most people in the tech savvy community would be happy with.
For all the noise journalists and the justice department make about big tech, there is basically ZERO action taken about the monopolization of IP that media houses indulge in.
I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC in comparison to what the alternative is.
The desktop games market is much heathier and less dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
This is where I see how long that battle will be.
The future where this "extremely annoying" situation is fully solved is Xbox XXX being un removable and the only Game Store allowed on any PC sold, with legal threats to anyone jailbreaking.
As long as user have a choice and control on their device, and competition is alive, we'll hopefuly have different stores with different rules and you'll be extremely annoyed I think.
Competition is awesome.
Is it? I regularly use Steam, Epic and XBox and occasionally Ubi, Larian and whatever the GoG one is called... and it's fine. It's just another program.
Android Studio doesn't run on Android. XCode IDE doesn't run on iOS.
XCode IDE requires an MacOS device. Android Studio works on Win/Mac/Linux/Chromebook_with_containers.
Android Studio runs in a Linux container. XCode only runs on MacOS.
Apple does not allow, and per a recent ruling, and DOES NOT HAVE TO allow 3rd party app stores.
(There are already 3rd party app "stores" for Android like FDroid.)
Android already allows, and per a recent ruling, MUST allow 3rd party app stores.
In terms of Application stores, (after trying to trademark the phrase "app store" to anticompete Amazon) Apple gets protectionism for their walled garden, and Android may not have a walled garden.
Apple built a new language called Swift.
The Java pitch was "write once, run anywhere" because you port the JVM, and J2ME.
Google rewrote many parts of the Java stack.
Google ported to Apache Harmony/ OpenJDK to port away from Sun then Oracle Java.
Google built a language called Kotlin.
Swift runs on MacOS, iOS, and Android.
Kotlin runs on Android/iOS/Win/Mac/Linux/JS. Dart lang also runs on any platform. Flutter also runs on any platform.
If other iPhone users want to install their own apps without jumping through absurd hoops, let them instead of telling them what they can and can't do with the hardware they own.
I never dealt with the "blue bubble" thing but it's not like I wasn't mercilessly bullied for basically my entire education about everything else you could possibly think of past the fourth grade. I'm all for tackling bullying, I think it's fucking heinous the kinds of things schools let happen under their watch, but let's not kid ourselves that Apple opening up iMessage is going to do a fucking thing about this.
For example, the EU's DMA provides a precise definition of "digital gatekeeper" and the rules only apply to them [1]. Gaming consoles and other embedded devices are excluded.
If there were more than two real choices available, I'd feel less strongly about this. And I realize that Apple isn't necessarily responsible for there only being two options (if anything, Google may be more to blame for this). But that's just how it is.
[*] I don't know if their marketing materials ever unambiguously refer to the iPad as a "computer", perhaps intentionally, but they've run ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...
Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware.
To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would:
- Let me access functions like customizing firmware
- Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem)
- Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.
Actually I'm not sure how you installed Amazon Shopping from the Amazon store anyways? I installed it a while back assuming they would have versions of Shopping and Kindle that would let me buy books, but they didn't seem to distribute those apps at all which I thought was strange. Still not seeing them there now.
> 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 irrespective of Play Billing
Have you really never ran into any apps that would have hit these restrictions ?
If you've never have use the Play Store in the first place that would be the case, but otherwise I'd assume every app you got from there are subjected to those.
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)
The restrictions on non-Google billing did impact my employer, but it was less of a problem in the US as in some other countries where Google only billing meant we couldn't charge users as very few had Google compatible payment methods and Google wouldn't let us use other providers that could accept money with the payment methods people actually had. We had other methods in our apk download, but I recall having to take those out, too.
Of course, Apple made payment go through them, but most Apple can accept payments from most of their users, and a lot of their users have a payment method on file.
Amazon Kindle is the poster child of that, but there's a myriad of other services that won't make an app to protect their feelings structure.
I suspect you mean, you chose Android because Google _said_ it was open.
Plenty of tech people chose Android because they knew others would be able to carve out a workable system based on the open source bits even if Google didn't actually keep it open.
This ruling is basically against Google rug-pulling - for example, looking the other way on third-party billing until deciding (after critical mass) that you are going to start enforcing the use of Google's payment services for certain classes of apps. At that point you are destroying businesses with such back-tracking.
They were slapped down because Google claimed they were open because you allow third party stores, but creating roadblocks (Play services, DRM licensing and device certifications for streaming apps) and applying pressure or doing revenue-sharing schemes with device manufacturers on the back-end to keep them from making their own store.
It is very difficult for a judge to slap Apple down for antitrust when Apple has been very careful to keep consistent rules and to only change them when it is considered invariably considered a benefit to the App Store developer (subscription rate reductions after one year, small business program, opening up new categories of apps like legacy emulators).
It is hard to argue a point when Apple started abusing their position when their behavior is consistent. If the App Store is a bad deal then why has it grown to be such a juggernaut from nothing?
That is why the EU took a different philosophy with the DMA.
I appreciate that Android did not go down this route because I don't believe any of these choices would have caused Android to fail.
That sounds like you either haven’t heard all of the indie developers complaining or are inclined to find reasons to say problems with “your side” have some other explanation. For example, this was just a couple weeks ago where Google’s “open platform” blocked a popular app from doing what their mutual customers wanted:
https://ia.net/topics/our-android-app-is-frozen-in-carbonite
If someone chose iOS because it’s closed then the judge has decided it can stay mostly closed.
Also Google is where it is because they pitched a platform that was friendlier for carriers to load up with crapware than Apple was. It wasn’t really openness for openness’ sake. If Google hadn’t done that we might have been in a world where Palm or Microsoft were the secondary or primary player next to iOS.
I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. As long as this is the state of US law, we won't see another open platform developed in the US because these rulings together say that the only way to be sure you're not punished for anti-competitive behavior is to ensure that no one can ever define a "market" around your platform. Only a fully walled garden is safe.
Apple published the rules for their App Store over a decade ago and has largely stood by them so Apple is not being punished.
Having a closed platform isn't illegal. Just ask Nintendo.
Anticompetitive behavior is illegal, even when you are anticompetitively competing in a market that you yourself chose to create by creating an open platform. Just ask Microsoft.
If Google's leadership didn't understand that legal restrictions their choice placed upon them, that failure is on Google's leaderhip.
> "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."
(Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)
They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.
But it never was. You were defrauded and everyone who made that choice for those reasons were illicit market gains because of the secret agreements Google exerted over the entire ecosystem around you.
It was never really open but you also never really knew about that because all of the real options were taken out back and killed before you saw them.
No. I knew exactly what I was getting and I've been enjoying it for years.
Is it perfect? No. But I know better than to demand perfection when something entirely suitable to my needs is already available.
Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well.
You didn't "see" the anticompetitive concerns but you also never benefit from any of the options you would have if Google had operated a legal business model.
Heck, just look at WordPress for an example of what happens when a company tries to create a purely open platform and then still be a for-profit company. You can have open platforms maintained out of altruism or closed platforms maintained for profit. Android was a middle path that has now been shown to be illegal.
You can still be a for profit company with an open platform without acting in an illegal manner.
You just won't be able to afford as large a hanger for your blimp in as small a number of years.
I can't even remember the last time I bought something on the Play Store. Nearly everything I've installed for years has been open source from F-Droid or was my own personal code that I wrote and loaded onto my phone without passing through any gatekeeper.
You can keep being condescending if it makes you happy, but you could also consider that maybe you don't know me?
It doesn't matter that 0.01% of users can technically install F-Droid. Reality, is that 99.99% of people fundamentally can't. Apparently the judge can understand this, and you can't.
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.
What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
The US judicial system makes as much sense as their tax code?
Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year.
On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition.
I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company?
it doesn't, right
the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.
Looking at previous decisions and leveraging them basically is the job of a lawyer.
IMHO this decision won't stand long. You cannot apply different decisions to similar cases.
How is Android closed in practice?
Go here, download and install the APK: https://f-droid.org/en/
You now have a third party app repository on your phone. And actually every Samsung device comes with their own app store installed in addition to Google Play. It's not perfect, Play having the privilege to automatically install updates, but good enough.
Also, AOSP is completely usable even without Google's apps or Play Services, and one proof of that is that Amazon forked it for their Kindle Fire.
The arguments from Apple fans are truly bizarre.
Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
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 situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts.
There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Note the "typically", and other courts never even had this rule of thumb to begin with...
The reason it sounds weird is because you are insisting on wording it a particular way.
They're a duopoly. They're being tried for abusing that duopoly. Nothing rotten there.
In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot).
Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of.
(Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)
Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS.
The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought.
But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now!
But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.
> 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.
People have accepted that either manufacturer or mobile provider owns their phone. You do not have administrative rights and some apps even disallow being run in a more free environment.
Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.
What I could see: make Play Store and Play Services uninstallable like any other app.
But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor does it give access to the full Play Store catalog to third-party app stores. Frankly I'd never even thought of the latter thing as something I or anyone would want, but sure, ok, make them do that.
Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their App Store monopoly (in the US at least), a situation that is even more locked down than Android's has ever been.
I absolutely agree that Apple's platform needs to be opened up too. And while I'm often not sympathetic toward Google on a lot of things, I can absolutely be sympathetic toward them feeling like they are being treated vastly unequally by the law.
But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.
The point is that Google is already open
being atm. in a position where suing you doesn't work well doesn't mean you are not causing harm nor doesn't mean you are not acting outside of the law. It only means that there is currently no effective way to use the law against you. But that can always change. And the US cracking down on them isn't limited to judge orders from cases of 3rd party companies against them. More specifically it's not even part of the state cracking down as that only refers to legislative and executive organs of the state judicial organs are supposed to be neutral.
Ergo, the redress isn't to say "Keep the ill gotten gains, but don't do it any more" -- it's to attempt to return things to the competitive playing field that might have existed if Google hadn't broken the law.
From that perspective, forcing them to use their market share to distribute alternatives makes sense.
I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but
I know this is a contrarian view.
Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming.
In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps as costs to do business increase and navigating publishing across various app stores will come with their own rules, costs, and headaches all the while establishes firms who already have the resources can create their own app stores and further extract rent.
Epic charges I think 12% or 17% on their store? Maybe the costs are lower than Apple, idk, but now Epic who is your competitor dictates what you publish on their store and you get the privilege of paying them to do so.
I think we’re cutting off the head of a snake and it’s growing 10 more in response.
I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go?
On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone.
> In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps
Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
> I know this is a contrarian view.
Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.
Microsoft
Sony
Nintendo
Ubisoft
Epic
Valve
Square Enix
I just don't really care if Apple gets a larger cut of the venue or if these large corporations do. Even on Desktop things aren't that great. My friends and I wanted to play Civ VI recently and they were on the Epic game store and I had purchased the game on Steam and they weren't compatible for cross-platform play. I know that's mostly a one-off, but it's not like I can buy Nintendo's games on Steam, nor can I transfer my license of Elden Ring on Xbox to my Epic Game Store.
None of this helps small developers they just now have to publish their games to multiple app stores which you may or may not have or may or may not want to set up an account for and you're paying Epic 17% instead of Apple.
Of course you can argue (and should, in my view) that those things suck and we shouldn't support those things either and I would agree! But where I disagree is then saying well Apple's the only malicious actor here. They're all in it together.
> Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.
Well, it is a recent change. So yes it is pending evidence. If Epic and Microsoft left it's because they want to gain control and more of the Apple revenue slice instead of paying out. Neither helps small game developers. Most of the limitation on mobile for gaming is that mobile gaming sucks and always will because the interface is bad compared to keyboard and mouse or a controller.
> You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.
Well as a user now I have to install yet another app that has my payment information and its own arbitrary rules. I might forget what App Store has what app. Maybe Epic makes me agree to some privacy considerations that Apple didn't in order to play their game and they only publish this "must-have" game on their store so they can collect data on me.
As someone who uses a Mac it's frustrating that not all games work on macOS. Why does Microsoft get to release Age of Empires only on the Windows-only Xbox Game Store (or whatever)? That's ok? There's a lot more of these dark patterns going on than these companies are leading you to believe.
YMMV but stores are incentivized to conduct activities to keep people using their store. Sometimes it's helpful to users and results in lower cost, other times it results in gatekeeping and other things that suck. My point is just that it's not a net moral good, but instead it's neutral and probably worse for developers since they have more bureaucracy to deal with and users since they have to deal with all of these app stores and payment mechanisms and whatnot.
> Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong?
I've considered it, and then considered that it's not wrong and it's just contrarian to what most people here on HN think.
Most people day-to-day don't really care about this and just prefer a single App Store, but then on HN people who like to jailbreak their phones and install and tinker with their phones and want lots of app stores with apps and are over-represented here.
In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole.
Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
Meanwhile, Apple literally reinvents apps/features that developers on iOS have made and rolls them into the base OS/you can bet when an API is blocked or deprecated that Apple is just about to release their own version of something.
People like to joke that Google's "don't be evil" is no longer applicable, but they completely ignore just how evil Apple really is. Totally brainwashed.
This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.
That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.
Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.
The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effectively for lay person conversations, using monopoly where more technical terms like duopoly is okay
Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?
To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.
This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.
Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.
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.
Google incentivized the OEMs to do that. Amazon could have incentivized OEMs to do that also, but the business plan that Amazon pursued did not involve third parties building their own Kindle devices.
> Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it.
This has never been true for Android in general. This hasn't been true for phones that only ship with the Play Store since Android 12, which I credit Epic for.
I'm on Android 14 here, shipped with Play Store by default. It still auto-updates apps.
Also, most modern devices won't even let you flash your own OS, even a modified copy of Android. It's irrelevant if the source code is available if you can't actually run it anywhere. It's the TeVo case all over again.
(FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
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.
i'm running lineageos with no google play services on a verizon esim as my daily driver
I would say not.
And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
No, obviously not. If Apple were to allow third-party web rendering engines but disallow third-party web chrome that would be equally ridiculous. But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.
> And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.
It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is), but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink.
> but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".
You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they themselves chose to brand it exactly the same as their desktop and Android browser; and that’s exactly how people perceive it: Google Chrome. It’s also wildly popular. I ask people about it sometimes when I see them using it and all that geeky crap that you and I know about how it’s not the same as Google’s “real” browser is beyond them. They don’t care and it’s just Google Chrome to them.
> It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is)
WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.
Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Both of these can easily be true at the same time.
> And it has a rendering engine
Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.
>> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?
> Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
Only as much as what I was responding to was an argument.
> If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.
Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use.
> Which is replacing the one that was removed.
“Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones. The Chrome that is in the App Store now is one that Google chose to ship and call Chrome. People like and use it too.
I think we can agree that WebKit is being subbed in over Google’s preferred choice of rendering engines though.
What you said could be the start of a counterargument to someone that says renderer==browser.
But they never said that. Their argument only depends on replacing the renderer being a sometimes-necessary component of installing your own browser. Talking about replacing the renderer but not the UI is a thought experiment that doesn't counter that.
> Except that is literally not true if a rendering engine is available to you to use.
Only if everyone agrees with your personal definition of browser. Many people don't.
> “Removed” would imply there was ever another rendering engine in use on Chrome for iPhones.
No, it just implies their starting point for making their iOS browser included the chrome codebase.
No they're not. Google is only being allowed to distribute half their browser, frankensteined together with half of Apple's, because Apple does not allow distributing a complete browser.
> WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.
Mainline WebKit is a fine rendering engine, but the iOS distribution is significantly outdated and buggy. "Safari is the new IE" caught on for a reason.
But we should have the option to choose. Apple is very anti-consumer, making all the choices (often bad ones) for us, giving us none. The court should rule to open Apple more. Android is open enough that you can do whatever you want, yet not complicated enough so people get confused with all the options you have.
Also Epic lost their case, so “the Court” isn’t in a position to do anything here. Even if they were, there is no law on the books anywhere in the country to serve as the basis for what you want the courts to do and someone new would have to bring a case, with standing.
The Feds are trying, I don’t remember web browsers being part of their filing, but it’s also been a while since I read it so I may have forgotten; but the problem is not only did Epic lose their case, they lost it in a way that thoroughly screwed over the Feds who were trying to build an antitrust case against Apple by getting a Federal district court to rule that Apple isn’t a monopoly, and if they can’t get to a monopoly ruling under a different district court that will stand up to appeal, they’re going to have a hard time getting Apple or a court to force Apple to agree to anything.
And as someone who’s done native for both, Android’s native SDK is a mess that even Android devs actually hate it.
Meanwhile, iOS’ SDK is incredibly exhaustive and coherent. I don’t know what your basis is for “better designed software”, but being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you? All while the competition can hardly build anything that actually lasts.
Microsoft and Google basically did the same thing, and in neither case it's really a testament to how "good" their respective software is engineered. If the amount of driver cruft on MacOS is anything to go by, the engineering underneath iOS and WatchOS is probably a fucking nightmare in most respects.
I used to be "the Android guy" at a big games publisher. In my time the billing component had to be rewritten three times solely because of Google changes. The Apple one was written once and left alone.
We can't even discuss why those Google changes happened because doing so would get you shot, or worse.
The tech direction that was going on at Apple was enormously better than other companies. It does feel like they've gone off the rails a bit, but things like Swift are underappreciated entirely because they're so successful, just with the wrong sort of developer.
It just means that it will take a while, like Intel, or what is happening with search and Google.
Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.
A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces.
So how would this normally work?
--> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate.
But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as:
1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them
2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and
3.) for Android you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start.
That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, and needs to be (wait for it:) regulated to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services.
But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...
They got where they did by leapfrogging the competition, dominating the supply chain, having incredible customer trust/service (with a sprinkle of Jobs' magic), thus reframing the entire category of smartphone.
It's unclear if anyone has delivered all these together. Google has dominated all other players at the OS level.
gosh, if they hadn't basically created the market for phones like this it's hard to see how they would be dominating the market for phones like this, given their behavior.
because that's what first mover advantage is in this case. They created a market, in hardware - that's pretty difficult.
regarding other posts saying Apple wasn't first mover in smartphones:
Hey, I remember what those old things looked like. There was such a qualitative difference between the iPhone and its competitors at the time that it seemed like a whole new category of product.
There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.
The other big thing is more subtle: the iPhone was the first major break in the carriers’ value-extraction model. It was common that you’d get phones with half the storage used by promo apps the carrier wouldn’t let you uninstall, and the carrier app stores were both limited and unbelievably expensive. We had multiple clients who were interested in mobile apps but the cost of being in the stores was like $50k per carrier plus half of the proceeds, and that was an improvement over the time Qualcomm demanded to see the balance sheet so they could decide what percentage of their TOTAL revenue was fair – we asked and they confirmed that they expected a cut of every sale, even ones which never involved the mobile app. The energy at WWDC08 was incredible because the app stores were both terms were so much better than anyone had gotten before, and you only had to do it once. I still think it should be better now but it used to be so much worse.
The thing that really made iPhone different was capacitive touchscreen, and the OS designed around that. WinMo pretty much required the stylus for many things.
> [...] when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
Ie Apple introduced a new, arguably better, entrant into an existing market, and managed to grow that market.
But I can see your argument that you can re-interpret being that first to really commit to a big touch-screen only and (almost) no buttons to be a 'first move'. (Though a different comment mentioned that Apple wasn't the first here either?)
The iPhone was definitely a successful device!
I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.
gps satellite data comes from a supl server, and supl support is built in to aosp.
now, unfortunately one of the most reliable supl data sources is google, but it's also trivial to run a proxy to mask where you're requesting the supl data from (neither the request nor payload vary)
not true. A standalone gps unit can use an almanac to get a gps lock, but supl suppplants using an almanac.
supl is a spec created by the telecom industry[1][2]. I don't think they want people to have good offline gps.
> it's also trivial to run a proxy to mask where you're requesting the supl data from
Lmao. It is definitely not trivial. I have an Android that is running lineage and microG, it's an endeavor for someone who likes tech.
Regardless, according to my understanding of the spec, the supl server authenticates your identity[3] and is already effectively tracking you, so using a proxy would only obfuscate your IP address. As such, I don't think IP alone is enough to maintain privacy from Google. You would need middleware to anonymize your device ID.
But really, I find it egregious that I can't choose to use simple gps almanac data and must instead either use a blind fix on my phone or give my data up to some random server. Standalone GPS units that use almanac data get a lock virtually instantly compared to my Note 10. I'm trying to create a disconnected smartphone for backpacking. It's garbage to have to burn battery needlessly.
[1] https://docs.broadcom.com/doc/1211168566155
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Mobile_Alliance
[3] pdf! page 13 https://www.openmobilealliance.org/release/SUPL/V2_0_6-20200...
Which is to say, not one that locked away features and functionality (ringtones! games!) to create additional revenue channels for carriers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but per memory Jobs used iPhone exclusivity to crack carrier "Our pipes" models open.
That meant the iPhone had a full fledged browser that you could actually use. The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular. A lot of smartphone plans also didn't include unlimited data. The BlackBerry plans were equally terrible, tied to BBM accounts, and the browsers were even worse.
The iPhone also had a real e-Mail client that could connect directly to a POP/IMAP server. A lot of competing smartphones only supported e-Mail through gateways run by the carriers or an enterprise connection. Even lacking features early on like BCC early iOS Mail was a lot better than the competition for normal users.
I think these all come down to Apple approaching the iPhone from asking what normal people might want to do with their phones instead of what "corporate" wanted people to do with their smartphones. This was 180° from the design approach of RIM, Microsoft, Palm, and even Nokia.
For instance decent enough to take a picture of an A4 page and be able to read it afterwards.
And IMAP support.
And Opera mini was a good enough browser, though mostly for text, as indeed 3G cellular (which the first iPhone didn't have) then cost 1000€/Go (funnily enough, that felt cheap and fast at the time, because it indeed was compared to what came before).
(Also video calls, though those are still niche for phones.)
And I hear Nokias were themselves quite primitive compared to what Japan had ?
Again, everything in your comment this seems like Apple made an arguably better offering in an existing market. That's not a first mover advantage.
If anything you can say, Apple was late to the party and learned from the mistakes of others?
But the iPhone did _not_ have any first mover advantage. If anything, Apple was late to the party.
Thank you very much for correcting me!
I had unlimited data on non-carrier controlled phones pre-iPhone on AT&T, and it was far cheaper than the iPhone data plan. Dumbphone plans had cheap data add-ons in comparison, just take the SIM from the ultra-cheap phone they included in the plan and drop it in whatever unlocked GSM phone you wanted. It supported 3G before the iPhone even launched. You just had to get a 3G-enabled cheap dumbphone with your plan to ensure you got a 3G-activated SIM.
Obviously, they didn't market this so most consumers didn't know this was an option.
I never claimed Apple had a first mover advantage. They made a smartphone much more aligned to consumer desires than any of the competition. Palm, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia all approached smartphones from the angle of business/enterprise users.
You can call Apple's approach being late to the party but that presumes that them entering some market is a forgone conclusion. Apple has rarely if ever been truly first to market with a product.
Also no iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Messages, Apple Pay, Apple Fitness, any kind of native Mac integration (Safari Bookmark sharing, Shared Bluetooth devices, clipboard sharing, Continuity Camera, AirPlay,...)?
No Apple Wireless charger, Apple Watch, Airpods, Apple-specific Accessories, Apple App-based carkeys or Apple CarPlay?
That's quite rare.
- nearly all apps support Android as well. The ones I used (navionics, banking apps, WhatsApp) you just log in on Android, no cost involved. - most Apple first party apps have a Google equivalent (google wallet, google keep notes, google messaging etc.) that is very similar - my AirPods work equally well with android
Users do not want to browse the web on mobile for all their activities, when Apps are generally faster, more secure, and has all their prefs recorded EVEN if a webapp is functionally equivalent (and most are only 70-90% equivalent)
So the new entrant has to curry favor with all these large software vendors (some of whom are now competitors) and offer something for some key uses of a smartphone.
Google's been ahead of Apple on tons of core user-facing features since the start (widgets, backgrounds, folders). The two platforms have extremely slowly converged to near-total feature parity. The only "advantage" of Apple's total ecosystem lock-in is relative seamlessness due to the vertical integration between their various services.
The thing is, it's barely any harder to set up an equivalent Google/Android ecosystem and has been for well over a decade as well. The real issue on the Google side of things is the renaming/shifting of services. Messages -> Gmail Chat -> Talk -> Duo -> Messages, Google Play Music -> Youtube Music, etc.
The feature parity's been there