[HN Gopher] Google agrees to pay $700M in antitrust settlement r...
___________________________________________________________________
Google agrees to pay $700M in antitrust settlement reached with
states
Author : DocFeind
Score : 144 points
Date : 2023-12-19 17:40 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| primatperfctnsm wrote:
| "Insert coin to continue"
| g-b-r wrote:
| At least they're forced to (gradually, slowly, after 15 years)
| make a few improvements though...
| koolba wrote:
| > Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the
| settlement, and may get additional payments based on their
| spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30,
| 2023.
|
| I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they
| actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge
| percentage of the payout?
|
| > Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects
| commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases -- fees
| that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than
| they would have been had there been an open market for payment
| processing.
|
| The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door
| of your walled garden.
|
| > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it
| even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps
| from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five
| years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or
| "scare screens," when alternative choices are being used.
|
| The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world
| consequence of this won't be improved competition. It will be
| grandma getting fleeced.
|
| It's not that it should be possible, but making it not "scary" is
| not a good idea for the reality we live in.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is
| other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by
| OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing
| OEMs to have exclusive app store deals?
|
| That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers,
| as having many or different app stores is confusing and just
| leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on
| Android for a decade.
|
| This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand,
| people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an
| experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does
| to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same
| with security.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists,
| is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores,
| by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals
| forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals?
|
| I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was
| preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I?
|
| The only reason people would ever use another store is if
| they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of
| course the situation on PC where you need to install another
| store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google
| made deals to prevent.
| ehsankia wrote:
| I'm mostly agreeing with you.
|
| Steam definitely has a monopoly of PC gaming, but it's also
| true that having a single place with all your games and
| friends is far more convenient. I'm not sure where the
| right balance is. Are we paying more due to the lack of
| competition to Valve's 30%? Would more competition be worth
| the fragmentation? Look at streaming services and the mess
| that has become. I'm not sure what the answer is.
| georgyo wrote:
| Steam is a bit of a very special case and I think very
| different from either Apple or Google stores.
|
| Steam is never part of a platform, except for maybe the
| steam deck, and even there it lets you very easily
| replace it.
|
| Steam will install other stores automatically for you.
| Does the game need EA's origin or what ever the epic
| store is called? It will install it as part of playing
| that game. Users will have multiple stores installed and
| will continue to choose Steam.
|
| In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store
| forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get
| another store but it isn't easy.
|
| To even get Steam, you as a user have to make a very
| conscious choice to install it.
|
| Steam is very much the choice of users and even many
| developers.
|
| Steam is a private company and doesn't seem in the
| business of ever attempting to screw with or limit users.
|
| Hell, Steams development of wine/pronton is the explicit
| choice to give users more choice.
|
| Steam maybe an app store, but IMHO it is definitely not
| ever forcing anyone to do anything, unlike Apple or
| Google.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store
| forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get
| another store but it isn't easy.
|
| Every Samsung and Xiami phone comes with another store.
| georgyo wrote:
| I think you missed my point. Even if that is the case, it
| is still another store that the hardware vendor
| installed. Most likely uninstallable without rooting the
| device.
|
| Steam does not come preinstalled (except for the steam
| deck), users choose to install it on platforms they own.
|
| Steam is removable from all platforms with minimum fuss.
|
| Steam can and will install competing app stores.
|
| None of these facts are true on Apple, Google, or other
| preinstalled mobile app stores.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| > Most likely uninstallable without rooting the device.
|
| You can disable them without rooting your device. I just
| verified.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The only reason people would ever use another store is if
| they were forced to, to install a specific app
|
| Obvious counterexample: The other store charges 4% instead
| of 15% or 30% and correspondingly the exact same app is
| cheaper there.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Steam charges 30% and is completely dominant on PC, and
| there's competitor that tries to compete by charging 4%.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's common to install PC games without an app store at
| all.
|
| Does the store charging 4% have the same games but for
| lower prices? Which one would you use if that were the
| case?
| gear54rus wrote:
| ...or when this shitty play store decides that something is
| not available for my device and/or region for some idiotic
| reason again
| g-b-r wrote:
| > The only reason people would ever use another store is if
| they were forced to
|
| ...or if the default store had terms you'd rather do
| without...
| g-b-r wrote:
| > anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen
| as anti-competitive..
|
| Sure, anything Google does to make it more cohesive...
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-
| on...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-
| skyhook-l...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > That being said, that's also a shitty situation for
| consumers, as having many or different app stores is
| confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people
| have complain about on Android for a decade.
|
| Are people confused because they can choose whether to buy
| things at Walmart, Target, Amazon or the local convenience
| store? Is this "fragmentation"? Should we get rid of these
| others and have only Amazon, so people aren't confused?
|
| It's not really that confusing. You can go to any shady
| website on the internet and give them your credit card number
| and find out what happens, but people mostly just buy things
| from stores they trust -- even though there are many of them.
| Why is this different?
|
| (Actual reason: Because the incumbents suppress the other
| stores so none of them gets popular enough to establish a
| reputation with the public at large.)
| Scion9066 wrote:
| Because it might not end up being a choice of which store
| to get things from like your physical goods example. For
| the larger apps/those from specific publishers it may
| likely be a choice of: Meta apps only from the Meta Store,
| Epic Games apps only from the Epic Games store, etc.
|
| And regarding the security aspect: once people expect to
| download a random app store for every company, they'll be
| less hesitant to download one that's just malware.
| qingcharles wrote:
| The payout I just got from the last Google class action was
| PayPal or check. I chose PayPal and they mailed me a check.
| wredue wrote:
| TLDR: Google was exploiting "openness" as a concept while
| actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss
| as op asserts.
|
| It's neat that you make this a Google vs apple thing somehow,
| but the walled garden had very little to do with the lawsuit.
|
| Google was found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.
| This behaviour is used by at least some consumers to make
| decisions (being an "open platform"), but which Google was
| forcibly manipulating behind to scenes to not actually be as
| open as they were pretending to be.
|
| You can call it just "apple keeping a walled garden" all you
| like, it doesn't change that Google was attempting to shift
| market behaviours based on what was demonstrably a lie. For all
| intents and purposes, Google *was a walled garden*, and
| comments like yours show that their manipulation worked.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| The walled garden has everything to do with the lawsuit. This
| lawsuit would not have happened had Android been a walled
| garden.
| wredue wrote:
| Android *is a walled garden*, and that's why they lost.
|
| Google asserts that they are open while actively being
| closed and anti-competitive.
|
| This is a win for openness. Not a loss.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Android is open, there is competition otherwise there
| couldn't be "unfair competition".
| wredue wrote:
| No. They pretend to be open. They speak out of one side
| of their mouths and behave from the other.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| My god you can install every app you want on an android
| phone. It's so absurd to deny this. It's not open because
| Google doesn't provide a billing service for every would-
| be app store competitor? Neither does Windows, Mac or
| Linux.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I don't know a ton about this lawsuit but I do know that
| sideloading was one of the arguments Google made, and
| they lost.
| twism wrote:
| aint nobody suing about not being open ... unless Apple
| would be litigating all day. Google lost wrt that
| argument because they actually allow side-loading but
| with a scary warning that the app they are side-loading
| shouldn't be trusted.
|
| Epic: Waaah! we don't want to pay the app store tax.
| We'll take Apple and Google to court.
|
| Apple: _Ha_ Non-Starter. Good luck with the app. Walled
| garden. Closed. We don 't bend for anyone on this hill,
| etc. your honor. Never have. Never will.
|
| Google: Well we also take a cut if you want to be in our
| app store (although the rules are a bit more loose than
| Apples and hush-hush side deals) but we are a open and
| your users can install the app without going through our
| app store (side-loading). Although we will show a warning
| to protect users that what they are installing hasn't
| gone thru the review/quality/security process the app
| store provides.
|
| Epic: _Hmm_ See your honor Google is putting up this
| scary label when we tell the users to install the app in
| a way that bypasses the Google tax.
|
| Judge: Yeah that does seem unfair. I'm ruling in favor of
| Epic against what Google is doing. Google stop putting up
| those scary labels!
|
| Apple Lawyers: _JAJAJAJA_
|
| Google: But but but...
|
| In the end Android is riddled with Malware and the OS is
| unusable because some app installed from a website not
| vetted by the review process is hogging all the resources
| or stealing bank info.
|
| "Android is the worst!"
| cogman10 wrote:
| Note: this lawsuit is actually different from the epic
| lawsuit. This lawsuit was brought by several states.
| gerash wrote:
| What do you think all these point-of-sale devices (eg.
| Clover, etc.) or Amazon Kindle run on? It's not iOS
| twism wrote:
| https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/main
| buu700 wrote:
| I'm dismayed that Google wasn't forced to revert the decision
| to block new apps from using their own signing keys[1]. That's
| far more problematic than the so-called "scare screens".
|
| 1: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-
| replacement-p...
| EE84M3i wrote:
| How would this effect normal users? For 99.9% of android
| users I don't think matters.
| qmarchi wrote:
| The impediment is that if your application is distributed
| via the Play Store, and is removed for some reason, another
| installer/store (FDroid, etc.) can't update the existing
| package.
|
| This means that the user can't seamlessly transition
| between the old and new distribution methods without fully
| uninstalling the app and wiping the data contained theirin.
| g-b-r wrote:
| No, you can still provide Google your own key.
|
| The _enormous_ problem with that change is instead that
| indeed you 're required to provide the keys to Google,
| which can thus replace your app with anything else
| (especially, something that a court orders them to use).
|
| Anyway to switch to F-Droid you _always_ had to reinstall
| the app, because they use their own signing keys (and
| indeed could be ordered to do the same thing as above,
| but it 's less likely).
|
| Although, I think there actually is a mechanism to switch
| signatures; but if I remember well it entails signing
| with the new signature a version signed with the old one,
| so it's complex.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| This has changed[0]
|
| >All the years before, F-Droid created a dedicated key
| for each app to sign the published APKs, but now with
| reproducible builds F-Droid ships APKs that are signed by
| the upstream developer
|
| [0] https://f-droid.org/en/2023/09/03/reproducible-
| builds-signin...
| g-b-r wrote:
| Only for reproducible builds, a lot of work has been done
| to encourage and facilitate them in the last years, but
| they're still a minority of the apps.
|
| By the way, these reproducible builds apps run a high
| risk of being signed with the same key that Google has
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| >these reproducible builds apps run a high risk of being
| signed with the same key that Google has
|
| That's a great point. Someone should submit a request to
| add language to their docs[0] letting developers know
| about that if it doesn't exist already. I breifly looked
| through that page just now and didn't see it pointed out
| explicitly. There should also be a way to let users know.
|
| [0] https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Reproducible_Builds/
| g-b-r wrote:
| About the fact that Google could have the signing key,
| you mean?
|
| Yeah I haven't followed much F-Droid lately, I wonder if
| they ever realized that...
|
| I think that the project never settled on a specific
| security model, to be honest, and the current one is
| mostly the result of happenstance.
|
| And I don't know what will happen to F-Droid now that
| some of the most important people left.
| g-b-r wrote:
| > if I remember well it entails signing with the new
| signature a version signed with the old one, so it's
| complex.
|
| Wait no of course it's the opposite, specifically you
| sign the new certificate with the old key, if I
| understood it right (https://source.android.com/docs/secu
| rity/features/apksigning...)
| buu700 wrote:
| It's essentially a mandatory backdoor. It means that Google
| has the capability to modify application code, and there's
| no longer a mitigation for this attack vector available to
| developers.
|
| Hypothetically, Google might be compelled by a government
| to deploy a malicious update to an app for surveillance
| purposes. It might also be seen as anticompetitive, in the
| sense that Google is the only entity which can manage its
| own keys for new apps, making new non-Google apps
| inherently less secure.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| > It means that Google has the capability to modify
| application code
|
| The Play Store has system signature, so it could already
| do that. The mitigation is on the user's side to disable
| the Play Store, which is where it has always been.
|
| > It might also be seen as anticompetitive, in the sense
| that Google is the only entity which can manage its own
| keys
|
| Only if they distribute through the Play Store. The whole
| point of the recent lawsuit is to make it easier for
| anybody else to distribute apps under their own control.
| g-b-r wrote:
| Google having the keys of all the apps on the store make
| _all_ of them subvertible.
|
| So you can reach even people without the Play Store and
| with degoogled systems, unless they only use apps from
| other sources.
|
| That's both a serious problem for not so few people, and
| a very useful attack avenue for law enforcement.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would
| they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a
| huge percentage of the payout?
|
| I got a $0.13 cent check from some iTunes class action
| settlement.
|
| edit: Think it was this one.
| https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cen...
| wesapien wrote:
| I just don't see many supposed grandma's (or prey people) make
| tweaks or go out and seek software outside of the playstore.
| The only reason my dad uses Newpipe is because of me. Someone
| knowledgeable has to introduce it to them. The most adventurous
| thing these people will do on their own is download apps on the
| playstore by themselves and sign in their app.
| ralph84 wrote:
| Until grandma gets a call from a nice gentleman at "Google
| tech support" who walks her through the process.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Or a nice popup informing her that her phone is infected
| with 1 billion viruses and she needs AV software right this
| minute.
| wesapien wrote:
| If they take the bait, them warning signs are useless.
| You're giving a novice a choice between removing the
| viruses on their phone and the dangers of installing
| third party software. Do you think the prey will be like:
| wait a minute, I see what this malware is doing? Ha! lmao
| wesapien wrote:
| If the mark/prey believes they are talking to a legitimate
| tech support person, their mostly screwed. The warning sign
| isn't there to stop a con artist or social engineering.
| wepple wrote:
| How would this type of attack work on an android that is
| locked to play store?
|
| I guess you could use a web phishing page, but you
| couldn't remote access their device. Maybe you could get
| a malicious data capture app into the play store that
| simply collects data, but it would eventually get banned
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > It will be grandma getting fleeced.
|
| Not just grandma. We need to move away from the idea that just
| a handful of digital illiterate seniors will get screwed.
|
| Android has been the main target for malware for a while now.
|
| Nokia's Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that
| Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems, in
| the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as
| they've done in prior reports, this year they again highlight
| that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate
| apps distributed via alternative means:
|
| > Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However,
| most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized
| applications and since Android users can load application from
| just about anywhere, it's much easier to trick them into
| installing applications that are infected with malware. Android
| users can protect themselves by only installing applications
| from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile
| anti-virus product on their device.
|
| 0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-
| Report-20...
|
| 1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-
| int...
| g-b-r wrote:
| Uh installing from just about anywhere that's unheard of in
| the history of computing!!!
| turquoisevar wrote:
| And nothing ever went wrong with that in the history of
| mankind, right?
| g-b-r wrote:
| It went so wrong that a history of computing exists!!!
|
| Anyhow, I don't argue that the security of most current
| computers is poor, but turning them into
| appsfromonestore-downloading devices is not the answer.
|
| (there are plenty of systems safer than Android)
| g-b-r wrote:
| Whether those numbers are true, malware on Android can
| generally do a lot less damage than on other systems (first
| of all because Android is not used for servers and
| workstations).
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A lot of _very_ sensitive data is on phones, often
| including password managers and VPNs that might give quite
| a bit of access to said servers and workstations.
| g-b-r wrote:
| A lot of _very_ sensitive data is on other computers, but
| they remain useful and safe enough despite allowing
| software not signed by Google.
|
| Meanwhile, for a lot of people around the world the only
| affordable computers are smartphones; and if they are so
| dumbed down, those people are enormously more limited
| than they'd need to in their capabilities.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > Whether those numbers are true
|
| Wow, hold on cowboy. If you're going to insinuate stuff,
| you better come packing with some sources.
|
| > malware on Android can generally do a lot less damage
| than on other systems (first of all because Android is not
| used for servers and workstations).
|
| I suppose that depends on your definition of damage.
|
| Considering most of the trojanized apps consist of banking
| apps that subsequently drain their victims' accounts, I'd
| say that's pretty damaging.
| quitit wrote:
| Agreed. We have the entire history of personal computing to
| know the consequences of these changes.
|
| Industry experts still state, ad nauseam, that side loading and
| 3rd party app stores are the overwhelming source of Android
| malware. (Source: Nokia Threat Intelligence report: literally
| every single year it is issued.)
|
| There are better solutions available, such as directly
| addressing developer's complaints, rather than hoping a
| competitor will materialise:
|
| - Requiring google spin off the approval process into an
| independent, audited entity.
|
| - Legislate a maximum price for transaction fees (like how some
| markets do with bank fees)
|
| - Legislate a maximum price for listing/admin fees (like how
| some markets do with staple goods)
|
| What isn't the solution is removing all guard rails from the
| number 1 source of malware.
|
| Also I don't care much for deemphasising the role of a trusted
| app store. This is mainly harmful to startups and small
| developers, since the likes of Spotify can fly solo and
| undercut smaller developers which rely on Google's store for
| visibility and user trust in transactions. Few will hand over
| their banking details to these smaller developers, especially
| if they're overseas or using a different currency.
|
| An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not
| meaningfully use computers because of malware. Yet this same
| generation is not scared of smartphones and tablet computers
| and contributes significant spend to the app ecosystem. I fear
| that once legislators and court rooms bring back the risks of
| computing in the '90s, it will take us back to square 1.
| sneak wrote:
| > _How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people
| without costing a huge percentage of the payout?_
|
| It's rentseeking monopolies all the way down.
| henriquez wrote:
| Grandma getting fleeced is a small price to pay when the
| alternative is totalitarianism.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people
| to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not
| illegal to not allow that at all.
| queuebert wrote:
| Government of the people, by the people and for the people.[1]
|
| 1. _Corporations have been determined to be people._
| megaman821 wrote:
| Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific
| rights should we take away from groups of people but are
| present as individuals?
| son_of_gloin wrote:
| Corporations aren't democratic organizations though so
| every individual in the group doesn't really have an equal
| access to these rights.
| polski-g wrote:
| Publicly traded corporations are democratic
| organizations. You get one vote per share you hold. If
| you want something to happen, the shareholders can vote
| for it.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Presumably the board could stop corporate speech the
| majority does not agree with. It would be interesting to
| re-litigate this case with a company like Facebook where
| Zuckerberg has special voting shares. If donating to a
| PAC is just a group of people exercising their free
| speech, can you delegate your right to free speech to
| someone else?
| g-b-r wrote:
| The most f* up aspect is interpreting corruption as "free
| speech", for both individuals and corporations.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| What's not clear to me is why a corporation's specific
| governance would matter. When a company "speaks", it's
| still an individual ultimately expressing themselves,
| just with the benefit of compensation.
| g-b-r wrote:
| Sure, expressing themselves...
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| You may not like their motives or incentives, but I don't
| see a compelling argument that makes their expression
| less legitimate than mine.
| sgift wrote:
| The compelling argument is that it should be quite
| obvious that companies do not speak for all of their
| employees, cause most of them are - to what degree can be
| argued until the end of time - basically coerced to
| express the "opinion" of the company. At most it's the
| opinion of the owners, artificially amplified.
|
| And to the question why the owners should not be able to
| express themselves: They can express themselves
| individually all they want, but if they want to use a
| company to do it they should also be personally
| responsible for everything the company does. And since
| one of the primary reasons to have a company is to
| isolate the owners from being sued personally ... there's
| a bit of a problem here.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| But that's not the claim. A "company" doesn't speak,
| individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a
| result of compensation, doesn't mean they lose their
| right to free expression.
|
| You're focusing on the "group" aspect of this, but that's
| irrelevant to the argument. A PR spokesperson has
| individual rights, even if they choose to use that voice
| to advance a company's goals.
| g-b-r wrote:
| "Corporations free speech" usually refers to the freedom
| of giving money to politicians, not the freedom of a PR
| to speech
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do
| that. There's a name on that check, a specific person who
| authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically
| stop a person from authorizing that check?
| g-b-r wrote:
| Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically
| stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of
| a corporation, the action is a result of the
| corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will
| (were it not so, the individual would have
| misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| And a nearly impregnable shield from criminal liability.
| g-b-r wrote:
| Corporations are systems generally set up to earn as much
| as possible disregarding everything else, definitely not
| "groups of people"....
| megaman821 wrote:
| Corporations are what their shareholders want them to be.
| Since a lot of the shareholders came to be shareholders
| by buying in, they generally want to see a return on
| investment.
|
| It doesn't have to be that way if you can convince the
| shareholders differently. You are free to bring up a vote
| to Disney shareholders to change their mission into
| finding every mouse in the world and naming it Mickey.
| g-b-r wrote:
| That's why I said generally
|
| By the way, there's a very widespread view that companies
| are legally required to maximize their shareholders'
| monetary profit.
|
| Can you name many corporations that _in the long term_
| were shown to not having behaved so?
| rqtwteye wrote:
| They should go to prison like individuals. Instead of the
| endless settlements suspend their business for a while.
| They would pay way more attention.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Write the Attorney General, corporations don't shield
| individuals from criminal liability just financial.
|
| If we are making a wishlist; government bailouts to
| corporations should trigger a termination clause for the
| the whole c-suite.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Law is so weird. Apple stopped watch sales today for using
| decades old technology[1]. And Google for this. Out of ALL the
| bad things they have done.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2023/10/31/some-a...
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is the problem that arises when the legislature doesn't
| make laws specifically around things like app stores.
|
| The courts take existing laws and regulations and try to make
| them fit, and different courts come up with different answers
| because the laws they're using never imagined this precise
| scenario.
|
| Ideally we'd have a functioning Congress that would debate
| these issues and write carefully thought-out laws to regulate
| app stores. Until then, we just get messes of seemingly
| contradictory rulings that seem to be decided more by chance
| than by any clear cohesive principle.
|
| In other words -- blame the legislature, not the courts.
| cogman10 wrote:
| These things would be processed faster if we had sane laws
| and/or procedures around lawsuit discovery requests and
| motions. Still a problem with the legislature, but also a
| little with the courts.
|
| We simply do not have enough judges to handle caseloads in a
| timely fashion. But also, whenever a major company is sued
| you end up with 8 billion motions that the court has to rule
| on before you even get close to a trial date.
|
| A major problem is there's no real penalty for wasting the
| court's time. Companies are incentivized to make longshot
| motions because in the worst case, the court will just say
| no. For lawfirms, the more motions you make the bigger their
| paycheck so they not only go unpunished, they are rewarded
| for making as many motions as possible.
| dfgfek wrote:
| >Ideally we'd have a functioning Congress that would debate
| these issues and write carefully thought-out laws to regulate
| app stores.
|
| Why is it ideal that there are more laws, more
| regulations...?
| wepple wrote:
| The system is currently very broken. Less laws wouldn't
| make this situation better. Either update/adapt, or require
| specific amendments?
| alephnan wrote:
| > because the laws they're using never imagined this precise
| scenarios
|
| These scenarios precisely avoided the law
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows
| people to install apps from other sources after warning them,
| but not illegal to not allow that at all.
|
| That hasn't been established yet. This wasn't a court decision,
| it was a settlement. Epic separately sued both Google and Apple
| and won against Google but lost against Apple, but both of the
| cases are being appealed and you don't have a national
| precedent until you have a Supreme Court decision.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Google created a market, and then they stifled that market.
|
| There's no "iOS app distribution" market for Apple to act anti-
| competitively in.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| Cydia?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia
| madeofpalk wrote:
| What's that?
| turquoisevar wrote:
| It's because the acts in a vacuum aren't illegal. It's about
| leveraging power derived from market dominance.
|
| (Although in this case the legality hasn't been adjudicated
| because a settlement was reached).
|
| If you create a platform and app market with strict rules,
| that's not illegal. The logic here is that you're new in the
| market and if the terms aren't commensurate with market
| conditions, you will never grow. If you do grow, then the
| market has decided that the gains outweigh the limitations you
| imposed.
|
| There comes a point where you have gained enough dominance
| where your actions can be scrutinized. But in general as long
| as you don't actively tighten the reigns, you're in the clear.
| So if you had strict rules when you started and despite those
| strict rules you grew and since then you haven't made the rules
| stricter, then you're in the clear because you haven't abused
| your market dominance.
|
| The flip side of this coin is that if you created a platform
| and app market that didn't have strict rules and was very open,
| but once you've gained market dominance you put up hurdles or
| you impose stricter rules, then there could be a problem
| because now it can be explained as you abusing your market
| dominance after everyone got in.
|
| Personally I don't think the so called "scare screens" fall
| under dominance abuse because they serve a legitimate purpose.
| If anything I think they're not enough.
|
| Nokia's Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that
| Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems in
| the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as
| they've done in prior reports, this year they again highlight
| that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate
| apps distributed via alternative means:
|
| > Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However,
| most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized
| applications and since Android users can load application from
| just about anywhere, it's much easier to trick them into
| installing applications that are infected with malware. Android
| users can protect themselves by only installing applications
| from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile
| anti-virus product on their device.
|
| In any case, whether something is legal or illegal in this case
| depends on whether it was or wasn't done while having market
| dominance.
|
| 0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-
| Report-20...
|
| 1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-
| int...
| lijok wrote:
| Am I misunderstanding or are you suggesting it should be
| illegal to make an OS that doesn't permit certain
| functionality?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Can someone tell me why Google "loses" and Apple still gets away
| with the same behaviour?
| gbear605 wrote:
| The EU is forcing Apple to allow third party app stores by
| April. As for the US issue, law cases like this are unique and
| have to be dealt with individually.
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-...
| delusional wrote:
| My understanding is that Apple's defense is that they never
| opted in to a free market, and therefore they aren't required
| to have one. Google however sold android as being a "free
| market" choice, and as such can't artificially skew that
| market.
|
| I don't know if it really makes sense, but that's my
| understanding of these two verdict when held in contrast.
| didibus wrote:
| My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-
| arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with
| competitors.
|
| For example, they'd make a deal with Samsung that if they want
| Google services on Samsung phones, Samsung had to agree to not
| let anyone else put competing app stores or payment processing
| other than Samsung's own and Google's own.
|
| Where-as Apple it's more seen that they simply are not letting
| competitors put their alternatives on their own Phones, which
| isn't seen as anti-competitive, but more as how Apple itself
| competes.
|
| And probably Google also internally used bad language that
| talked more about how to prevent competitors, etc. that might
| have been more incriminating.
|
| So I think they see it more like if CocaCola told Walgreens
| they won't sell Coke products at Walgreens if Walgreens caries
| Pepsi products. Where Coke is seen as such a big player, that
| their leading market position forces Walgreens to agree,
| because not selling Coke would harm them financially so much
| due to the market leading position of Coke, but also it's seen
| as a anti-competitive agreement from Coke.
| kevindamm wrote:
| Jurors confirmed that a big part of their decision was based
| on Google's internal behavior, not explicitly the deals. The
| evidence that upper management would move sensitive
| conversations to chat where they knew a short 24hr retention
| period existed was a very influential piece, as well as some
| of the wording in internal emails.
|
| I always thought the Communicating with Care courses were a
| reasonable amount of legal paranoia, but I see how it could
| also look sketchy.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| My favorite part of this whole thing is getting ammo
| against Google apologists (aka current Googlers not using
| auto-sell).
| ralfd wrote:
| autosell?
| amyamyamy2 wrote:
| Autosell is a way for employees to automatically sell
| their Google shares as soon as they vest
| its_ethan wrote:
| I heard on a podcast that some part of the difference in the
| two rulings was due to the fact that Google was cutting deals
| with some companies/developers to lure them to their store,
| meaning not everyone was equally subject to the 30% fee. Apple
| (to my knowledge) hasn't done any deals like this - everyone
| pays the same fee, no special treatment (until recently, when
| they reduced the fee for apps with revenue <$1m)
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| No, Apple does that as well:
| https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-
| proj...
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Just give it time. People tripping over themselves to insist
| they're fundamentally different will lose out. It'll even out
| and regulation will catch up
| atonse wrote:
| Having to settle and pay $700 million is not a loss. That is
| NOTHING for Google.
|
| This is a huge win for them, because you can rest assured
| Google will get a ton of concessions out of the states in
| exchange of paying the fine. It's not even high enough to make
| Google feel "let's never do this again" - it wouldn't be for
| Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, any of these guys.
|
| It should be in the order tens of billions or a hefty amount of
| their revenue, whichever is greater. Google must be celebrating
| such a low fine.
| jsnell wrote:
| First, it wasn't a fine.
|
| Second, the settlement wasn't just this $700M, it was a bunch
| of changes to how Android works. As explained in the article.
|
| Third, where in the world are you getting this fairytale
| about "concessions from the states" from?
| gerash wrote:
| There's no point in trying to find an "explanation" or
| justification here. This is by no means a fair outcome.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| The Verge has a pretty good explainer on how, in relation to
| the Google/Epic case https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-
| google-loss-apple-w...
|
| The tl;dr is that the jury determined that "android app
| distribution" is the relevent market, and google has lots of
| dodgy emails where they stifled competition in it. There is no
| "ios app distribution" market.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| The long and short of it is that it matters when you started
| doing it, or more precisely how dominant you were when you
| started doing it.
|
| If you have strict rules form the get go while you're a nobody
| in the relevant market, then you're free to maintain those
| strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player
| (although you can't become more strict). This is in part
| because the assumption is that if your rules would've been too
| strict, then you would've never been able to become a dominant
| market player, because nobody would've wanted to deal with you.
|
| If on the other hand you were open and didn't have strict rules
| in place but you start changing your tune once you're big and
| powerful then it could be explained as you abusing your power
| (i.e. luring people in with relaxed rules, only to turn up the
| thumbscrews once everyone depends on you).
|
| Apple has always had a walled garden with strict rules and a
| 30% commission, and despite that many were happy to join. Since
| then they've not turned up the thumbscrews, in fact they've
| done the opposite by lowering the commission for the vast
| majority of developers. The flip side is that they can't go
| stricter and to a higher commission from here because they are
| too dominant now.
|
| That's also in part why Apple has all these hills they're
| willing to die on, anything they concede now, they can never
| undo or return to.
|
| They don't have the flexibility of testing a 5% commission for
| example and see if that works better, because the moment they
| decide it didn't work out for them and they increase it back to
| 15% or 30%, it can be explained as an abuse of dominance
| because of the people that joined in, and became dependent on
| them, during that test.
|
| Smaller companies can try new pricing strategies, new
| monetisation strategies, etc. Sure when they announce that from
| now on their "free plan" is discontinued some customers might
| moan and complain, but they never have to worry about
| government intervention on the basis of antitrust.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > If you have strict rules form the get go while you're a
| nobody in the relevant market, then you're free to maintain
| those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big
| player (although you can't become more strict). This is in
| part because the assumption is that if your rules would've
| been too strict, then you would've never been able to become
| a dominant market player, because nobody would've wanted to
| deal with you.
|
| My head hurts.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| I'll simplify it for you:
|
| You can act like a dick, lock everything down and impose
| all kinds of shit onto your product, as long as you do it
| from the get go before you start being successful and don't
| turn into more of a dick once you're successful.
| mattcantstop wrote:
| One thing that always surprises me is how toothless any anti-
| trust settlement is. I don't think I have ever seen an anti-trust
| fine that was so painful that it would deter people from trying
| to do it in the first place. It almost always is a sum that would
| encourage anti-competitive behavior in the future because the
| fine is so much less than the spoils of the behavior.
| pulse7 wrote:
| This settlement is a joke...
| doublerabbit wrote:
| you'll better enjoy your $2 or else
| hereme888 wrote:
| Not for the lawyers. I bet they just filled their multi-
| generational retirement fund.
| g-b-r wrote:
| To all the comments claiming that Android is open, managed
| cooperatively and in the best interest of users:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
| hedora wrote:
| > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it
| even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps
| from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five
| years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings,
| or "scare screens," when alternative choices are being used.
|
| Note that they're not agreeing to stop actively sabotaging
| third party android variants and app stores by encouraging app
| developers to take on bogus Play Service dependencies.
| troyvit wrote:
| > Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other
| concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling
| competition against its Android app store
|
| > [...] it's a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the
| attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if
| they had taken the case to trial instead of settling.
|
| > The settlement represents a "loud and clear message to Big Tech
| [...]", said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
|
| It sure does. It's just not the message you think or claim it is.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| And they also have to do a few small things for 5 years. That's
| it?
|
| In other words, google won
| alephnan wrote:
| What would have happened if Google didn't agree?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-19 23:01 UTC)