[HN Gopher] Google must open Android for third-party stores, rul...
___________________________________________________________________
Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge
Author : dblitt
Score : 292 points
Date : 2024-10-07 19:00 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| ZunarJ5 wrote:
| Bumping Droidify because it's great!
|
| https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.looker.droidify/
|
| https://github.com/Droid-ify/client
| maelito wrote:
| Oh cool ! Will the apps installed through froid be recognized
| in droidify ?
| g-b-r wrote:
| Yes
| aaronax wrote:
| So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via
| F-Droid? Seems complicated.
| zorgmonkey wrote:
| They have apk's in the github release's tab, I assume you can
| just install those instead https://github.com/Droid-
| ify/client/releases
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > the better F-Droid client
|
| How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.
| g-b-r wrote:
| Droidify used to be much better because the official
| F-Droid client had a lot of problems, but now the latter is
| alright
| baal80spam wrote:
| Only fair.
| clhodapp wrote:
| > and it must give rival third-party app stores access to the
| full catalog of Google Play apps
|
| That one feels a step too far to me. It seems like it should be
| the developer's job to share their app with third party stores,
| not Google's.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Google is the developer.
| clhodapp wrote:
| Oh! Is this only Google's own apps? I read it as requiring
| Google to offer some kind of API to allow any app that any
| developer lists on the Play Store to be sucked into a third-
| party store. What would "unless developers opt out
| individually" mean then?
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| This applies to every app in the Play Store, not just
| Google's apps.
| wccrawford wrote:
| That isn't "all apps on Google Play". It's "all apps developed
| by Google that integrate with the Google Play system."
| flutas wrote:
| Nah, it's absolutely all apps on google play.
|
| > 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.
| clhodapp wrote:
| Yeah, it just feels like it's opting developers into a
| business relationship with third party app stores that they
| may not want, by virtue of their business relationship with
| Google.
|
| 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.
| TrianguloY wrote:
| Perhaps, but that will mean that you will be able to download
| the official apks from other places, which is what aurora store
| does but without having to use a google account (probably, but
| not sure about that).
|
| 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)
| bagels wrote:
| So, then, Apple is next?
| DannyBee wrote:
| No, apple won on the exact same claims in front of a different
| judge.
| vitus wrote:
| That's an unfair characterization of the situation.
|
| 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...
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| Both suits were brought over the same things, but the actual
| arguments presented were different.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as
| "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not
| legally a monopoly there in part because of competition from
| Google, Nintendo, and Stadia (lol). A suit from another
| company could result in a different market determination and
| a different outcome without being inconsistent with that
| ruling.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install
| alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can
| easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an
| APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) is
| an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't?
|
| Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to
| Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a
| monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third
| party app stores?
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| In the EU only
| whimsicalism wrote:
| they still have to go through Apple review & still have to
| pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is
| fucking horseshit.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like
| my computer, should be able to install whatever code I
| damn well please.
| atrus wrote:
| > My phone
|
| Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
| weikju wrote:
| Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the
| one from the makers of the phones and computers.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose
| electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own
| have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the
| courts should require them all to create methodologies
| for us to run our own code on them?
| Spivak wrote:
| Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the
| prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should
| probably go all the way in the manner you describe and
| level the playing field for everyone.
| tadfisher wrote:
| What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the
| scary warnings in front that you want, just have a
| "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and
| lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-
| engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops
| the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run
| code on your device.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > What is the downside for the consumer here?
|
| 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
| wiseowise wrote:
| > A lot of the things I own have processors in them
| nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require
| them all to create methodologies for us to run our own
| code on them?
|
| Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think there is a big difference between devices that
| don't easily support running third party code and apple
| devices which they have had to spend lots of money
| developing multiple signing schemes, bug patches,
| threatening jailbreak communities, etc. just to prevent
| people from running 3rd party code
| throw16180339 wrote:
| If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I might switch now that Apple has been forced to embrace
| RCS - but the blue bubble lockout for younger people
| is/was unfortunately very real.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| People say this as though teens and tweens aren't just
| going to find something else to latch onto immediately to
| bully the fuck out of one another.
|
| 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.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If you don't want to install apps outside of the App
| Store, you don't have to.
|
| 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.
| tencentshill wrote:
| What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a
| quality code review?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > percentage
|
| Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that
| may or may not be fair: $1000.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good
| experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then
| with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me
| purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last
| decade or so.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get
| mixed up:
|
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple
| does not have to allow third-party app stores.
| xnx wrote:
| It is ridiculous. From Google's reply
| (https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-
| policy/epic-...): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a
| decision that is completely contrary to another court's
| rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple -- even
| though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always
| allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and
| sideloading."
| fredgrott wrote:
| unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they
| sign....its not open like Google claims....
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| They got caught doing the same thing Microsoft got caught
| doing in the 90s with IE/Netscape -- using their monopoly
| position on one piece of software (Windows, the Google app
| suite) to prevent their OEMs from shipping another piece of
| software by default (Netscape, Epic Games Store) that
| directly competed with their own offering (Internet
| Explorer, Google Play Store). Since Google and Microsoft
| both use OEMs, unlike Apple in their parallel case, there's
| a clearer line to how Google is being unfair compared to
| how Apple is being unfair.
|
| 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).
| to11mtm wrote:
| > In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between
| them and Samsung.
|
| This is actually very insightful given the history
| between Google and Samsung with Tizen.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a
| defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it
| worse."
|
| _Both_ Google and Apple 's platforms need to be cracked open
| to competition.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it
| worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure,
| they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are,
| then they want to be regulated no worse than their
| competitor.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge
| legally-enforced advantage.
| Electricniko wrote:
| I liked the absurdity of one of the top comments on the
| Verge article, which was that under the requirements of
| this ruling, Apple could open up an app store for Android
| and Google would be forced to put it on their Play Store.
| freedomben wrote:
| Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular
| web browser on the Apple app store
| SllX wrote:
| Chrome is on there and people still use it. It's just not
| using Blink. Web browser [?] rendering engine.
| dnissley wrote:
| Sure, but I would argue that Google's platform was open
| _enough_ in that it was possible to download and install
| alternative app stores. They shouldn 't need to do most of
| the things that are being requested here, like distribute
| play store apps in those alternate stores or change their
| requirements about what payment systems are used in apps
| downloaded through their app store. For the most part I
| think they should still be able to do what they want to do
| in their own app store, just like Apple.
| lancesells wrote:
| I think the difference is Google's platform is also on
| other manufacturers devices? If Android only existed on
| Pixel devices it could be different.
| nerdix wrote:
| Why should that matter? If anything, shouldn't that mean
| that Google doesn't have a monopoly on Android apps in
| the way that Apple has on iOS apps because the device
| manufacturer can pre-install their own store on their
| devices? Like Galaxy Store on Samsung devices
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago
| you'd be right.
|
| If the company that literally doesn't allow users to
| install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the
| clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the
| one they took issue with.
|
| Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future?
| Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine
| the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still
| will have the same meaning. And being a market leader
| doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a
| monopoly on motorized transportation.
|
| Having two competing companies being tried for the same
| monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the
| courts have become.
| redserk wrote:
| While the term "monopoly" is being misused, it shouldn't
| be that difficult to determine, with basic reading
| comprehension, that the intent is "seemingly anti-
| competitive behavior".
| immibis wrote:
| Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google
| appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows
| bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never
| used in practice - the EU made them add a browser
| selection page.
| Phrodo_00 wrote:
| > Google appears open yet is closed in practice
|
| How is Android closed in practice?
| xethos wrote:
| For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google
| apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of
| which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely
| did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing
| happening on non-Google hardware.
|
| 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.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Android has the appearance of an open platform that could
| accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes
| by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never
| had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does
| not have the opportunity to do the same thing.
|
| What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
| ssl-3 wrote:
| It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity
| contest; they're not running for public office or something
| here.
|
| 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.)
| kelnos wrote:
| Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS?
| If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be
| limited to its district/circuit.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| They were both in the same court (United States District
| Court for the Northern District of California).
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, but I think it's fair to say "why are you regulating
| us significantly more than you are regulating our similar
| competitor?" Android is already more open than iOS; you can
| already install third-party app stores, where the only hoop
| you have to jump is agreeing to a warning about installing
| things from "unknown sources".
|
| 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| The lesson that companies are going to draw from these two
| cases is that opening up your ecosystem to allow
| competition is extremely dangerous because someone can come
| along and claim that you've created a brand new market that
| you're now monopolizing. The lesson is that it's better to
| be completely locked down and allow no competition
| whatsoever than to try to profit from running a mostly-open
| platform.
|
| Obviously the ideal situation that we all want is two fully
| open platforms, but these precedents will create the
| opposite.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and
| their distribution network.
| Urgo wrote:
| Ebay sellers already can do this [1] [2]
|
| [1] https://www.edesk.com/blog/ebay-fulfillment-amazon-fba/
|
| [2] https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon
| cma wrote:
| > and where you can easily install apps through other means
|
| When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be
| automatically updated without going through the scare screens
| again manually.
| talldayo wrote:
| Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a
| decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable
| warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for
| the first time.
| cma wrote:
| I believe the right thing I wanted to refer to is
| unattended app updates, enabled for third party sideloaded
| stores only with Android 12 or so. Maybe 12 added it back
| after it was taken away at some earlier point?
| kokada wrote:
| I am an Android user for a long time (since Android 2.2)
| and used pretty much every version from then on. Google
| devices (from Nexus to Android One devices and now
| Pixels) pretty much always allowed unattended updates for
| a long time (you may be right about Android 12, my memory
| is fuzzy here). And I never remember having scary
| warnings for sideloaded apps, sure, Android made it more
| difficult to install them (by having a permission per app
| instead a global permission, but I would say this was a
| very welcome change), but it was never convoluted or
| difficult.
|
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think what people upthread are talking about is
| allowing third-party stores (like F-Droid) to do
| unattended updates. That has not been possible until
| recently. Up until Android 12 or so (possibly later), I
| had to manually approve it any time F-Droid wanted to
| update an app I'd installed through F-Droid itself.
|
| Unlike with apps installed via the Play Store, which can
| update them without needing my manual approval.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| There weren't scare screens, at least I don't remember any,
| but the upgrade flow was comically bad for apps installed
| outside of the Play Store.
|
| 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.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| e: I had a snarky comment about the EU here, misplaced
| lostmsu wrote:
| This court case was in Northern California.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Yeah,the famous James Donato judge from California, France.
| stefan_ wrote:
| If I remember correctly the problem here is that in Googles
| version of an "open platform", they hide alternative app
| install behind fifteen menus of settings, restrict
| functionality (auto updates) and issue scary popups to users.
| These are deliberate choices that expose them. They also keep
| having to pull more anti-competitive moves with device
| manufacturers to keep control of Android.
| throw653649 wrote:
| I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any
| concrete evidence supporting either potential future
| administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president
| doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration
| filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the
| current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ
| v. Apple lawsuit.
|
| 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
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential
| future administration being tougher on Apple?_
|
| 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_t
| he_...
| throw653649 wrote:
| > But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case
| between private parties is off topic
|
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it
| lovethevoid wrote:
| Android has far more users both globally and in the US
| specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of
| downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less
| lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as
| dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a
| sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play
| Store aren't Google-only.
|
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Android has far more users both globally and in the US
| specifically_
|
| 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.
| to11mtm wrote:
| To some extent it's an illusion of openness and
| availability.
|
| 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
| nerdix wrote:
| Yes, Apple has been consistently bad.
|
| 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.
| Timshel wrote:
| It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like:
|
| - 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.
| seany wrote:
| - 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some
| stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)
| kbolino wrote:
| This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed
| an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked
| by the Play Store version eventually.
| derkades wrote:
| Since Android 12, third party app stores can auto-update
| apps
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| - wow, this is an exact case Apple more or less won in Apple
| v Epic. They got some minor slap on the wrist about steering
| but they still got around that. Apple must have paid their
| judge off big time
|
| - 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.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't?
|
| 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?"
| Spivak wrote:
| > Would that be more "fair?"
|
| 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.
| wiseowise wrote:
| I agree with you. First decision needs to overruled and
| Apple sued to hell until they comply.
| akira2501 wrote:
| One is a Federal criminal case.
|
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _They don 't prevent Apple from facing the same lawsuit or
| from being covered by the same judgement._
|
| I thought Apple _did_ face the same lawsuit, against the same
| plaintiff, and Apple won.
| graeme wrote:
| It's because android is licensed to third party manufacturers
| and google changed the terms in a way contrary to law. Whereas
| Apple has had the same terms since the app store's launch and
| only used the app store on Apple devices.
|
| It's the same way that playstation can set its own terms for
| playstation game sales. They make both the software and
| devices.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing
| out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget
| to the end user very differently from a company that sells a
| piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end
| user.
|
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think we just have different priors.
|
| 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_.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| The problem is that we will have proprietary software
| (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame
| their phone being slow.
|
| I don't like that app stores engage in rent seeking
| behavior when it comes to payments, but that is a separate
| issue.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Google does both. And you haven't made an argument or brought
| any facts at all to the discussion, you just vaguely waved
| your hands at the court system and said "A is not B".
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Yes because Google said there platform was "open" and then
| changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting
| beforehand.
|
| There is Supreme Court precedent for this
| NotPractical wrote:
| This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform
| was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google
| was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably
| not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean
| a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement
| with Google that promised me source code for Android or the
| ability to sideload on my Android phone?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| They're both duopolists, and this is at least a step in the
| right direction.
| Yeul wrote:
| The EU didn't come to that conclusion they're gunning for
| everyone.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Apple's business model is more amenable to current law's
| obsession with "intellectual property". If the government
| grants you a monopoly over a market, it's not a crime to exert
| monopoly power over that market. Apple's argument is "we can
| sell iOS however we want", and this works because the US has
| the best copyright laws money can buy. We need to fix them.
|
| 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.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| If you claim the platform you create is open, but use
| anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in
| a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that
| the platform is closed.
|
| 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. .
| scotty79 wrote:
| There's no F-Droid in Play Store
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| I'm confused, I've been using 3rd party app stores on Android for
| years now?
| advisedwang wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > 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
| dugite-code wrote:
| Not as a first class citizen.
|
| * 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.
| tencentshill wrote:
| Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and
| the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their
| partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries
| and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do
| otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Right, just like how they've done on desktop environments
| hooli42 wrote:
| This is exactly the situation for desktop games right now,
| something Epic is profiting immensely from. It's an extremely
| annoying situation for users, having a dozen launcher/store
| apps around contributing to bloat.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| No it isn't, the competition is great and is lowering
| prices across the board, and no arbitrary censorship
| exists.
|
| The desktop games market is _much_ heathier and less
| dangerous for users than the mobile app market.
| brink wrote:
| That's exactly the competition that keeps PC from having
| the hiked prices the likes of Switch/XBox/PS5 stores and
| having to pay $15/mo to play games with your friends
| online.
|
| I'll happily have to deal with a few extra launchers on PC
| in comparison to what the alternative is.
| wiseowise wrote:
| I literally don't have anything but Steam installed.
| hggigg wrote:
| Aye and it's a fucking shit show.
|
| Down with _all_ "stores"!
| NotPractical wrote:
| That's not really a valid comparison because the Microsoft
| Store and the macOS App Store don't allow third party stores
| on them. You have to "sideload" any alternative stores/apps
| you want. To be clear I doubt the hellscape described by OP
| will come to fruition but still.
| talldayo wrote:
| That can only happen if Apple's first-party distribution terms
| aren't attractive. If the App Store is capable of standing on
| it's own, then third parties _shouldn 't_ pose a threat to it.
| Something tells me the lower prices and free software on
| alternative stores will drive adoption though.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I like my app store called "the internet."
| akira2501 wrote:
| Yep. Then consumers can decide which one is best for them. Then
| they can compete. Then the best features with the best pricing,
| no only for customers, but the cut for developers, can be
| discovered.
|
| You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I
| honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
| jpc0 wrote:
| Amazon Prime Video... Netflix... Disney Plus... The choices
| are great...
|
| Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
| tuna74 wrote:
| Yeah, and Crunchyroll, and Viki and a lot of other services
| most people probably don't know about.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Yes, they are. This competition means an enormous boom in
| quality content has been produced that would have never
| existed otherwise because of the competition.
|
| Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't agree. TV/movie programming, and the services
| they run on, are not fungible. If I have a show that I
| like that's only on a certain platform, it doesn't matter
| how good or bad that platform is, I need a subscription.
|
| 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.
| throw16180339 wrote:
| > You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden.
| I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
|
| 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.
| crazygringo wrote:
| How can I decide which store is best for me when the _only_
| store I can get Spotify from is the Spotify store? And the
| _only_ store with Instagram is the Meta store?
|
| 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.
| n_plus_1_acc wrote:
| Points at the netflix app, through which you can install bloons
| Tower defense
| wiseowise wrote:
| Do you have anything to prove your claim? Any precedent?
|
| 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?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Streaming services
| wiseowise wrote:
| Streaming services what? I can download every streaming
| service from Play Store.
| al_borland wrote:
| I see where it says Google isn't allowed to do this kind of
| thing. I hope they were forward thinking enough to ban
| exclusivity deals across the board, or this is going to turn
| into a total goat rodeo.
|
| The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the
| mess of unintended consequences.
| mike_d wrote:
| Epic's "First Run" program does all the things they got mad at
| Apple and Google about.
|
| 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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| All I care about is having some healthy competition in the
| marketplace again.
|
| 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.
| bsimpson wrote:
| As I recall, the original App Store argument was "It would
| cost a lot more than 30% to mint CDs and sell them in
| Waldenbooks, so we're doing developers a favor by _only_
| charging 30% to distribute."
| hu3 wrote:
| How generous!
|
| That's the kind of argument that only gets a pass if you
| have no other option as a user. Wink wink.
| callc wrote:
| There are a myriad of points which make this metaphor a
| insufficient argument at best (at worst intentionally
| obfuscating the nature of digital publishing and digital
| marketplaces as having similar physical analogues) in favor
| of the current app store landscape:
|
| 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.
| rahkiin wrote:
| It was 30% vs whatever parties like Symbian asked at the
| time. Or other existing platforms like consoles where
| developers were left with less than 70%.
|
| Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did
| involve a lot of expensive publishing
| bitwize wrote:
| There were lots of times Microsoft filed amicus briefs against
| patent trolls and the like, claiming the need for a "free and
| open internet" or "open standards in the X space", while still
| in the hot seat for bundling Internet Explorer.
|
| Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice
| when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers
| when it benefits them.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I will find it deliciously ironic and welcomed if precedents
| set by Epic are eventually used against them. The even more
| hilarious news though is that apparently PC users hate their
| platform so much though, that exclusivity on Epic is perhaps
| more of a liability. I read the other day that that new open
| world Star Wars game had "disappointing" sales because of that.
| protimewaster wrote:
| It's strange to me, because there's literally more
| competition in the space, but people are unhappy about it. PC
| games used to regularly be Steam exclusive for years on end,
| and now games are often available on multiple stores within
| months or a year from release, but people are for some reason
| unhappy about this fact.
|
| 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?
| isatty wrote:
| That's because people don't actually give a rats ass about
| competition directly. They care about _cost_ AND
| _convenience_. Steam is great on both fronts and you don't
| have to create yet another account or have another buggy
| pos launcher on your computer.
| protimewaster wrote:
| I'm not sure why people would actively want their game to
| require either EGS or Steam, though, even if it's
| convenient. EGS has business practices that drive a lot
| of people crazy, and Steam has an awful security track
| record and was also convicted of anticompetitive pricing.
| (Though people seem to like Steam's business practices
| even with that conviction, which also always struck me as
| a little weird.)
|
| It seems like not requiring either one would be the more
| neutral, agreeable position to take.
| cyberax wrote:
| I don't get it. Epic is offering a different pricing model that
| might or might not be more advantageous to developers
|
| That is literally what competition should look like.
| nicce wrote:
| From the judges decisions:
|
| > Google also can't:
|
| > Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the
| Play Store exclusively or first
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Makes sense that privilege was taken away, given that
| Google is facing legal consequences for abusing their
| position in the mobile app distribution and payments
| markets.
| kaba0 wrote:
| No companies (at least above the "tiny" category) care about
| anything, they are paper-clip machines and the only thing
| preventing them from extracting iron from our blood is the law.
| protimewaster wrote:
| That sounds more akin to a standard exclusivity agreement and
| seems much different (at least to me) from what Google got in
| trouble for.
| 015a wrote:
| List of extremely tired and boring things:
|
| - 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.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| I also disagree with GP's post because you don't need to use
| any of Epic's software. At the same time, I don't think your
| response is in line with HN's guidelines and is unnecessary.
|
| >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-
| examine. Edit out swipes.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if
| you use Epic exclusively for payments
|
| That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods
| is not.
| flykespice wrote:
| They just want max profits without paying any fees.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Epic doesn't make phones that run Epic made OS.
| gytisgreitai wrote:
| Good. Android will continue becoming s*t show.
| TrianguloY wrote:
| Oh! So I'll finally be able to add donation links to my apps? And
| links to both play store and f-droid??
|
| 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...)
| sigmar wrote:
| I've been pretty anti-google on this topic (and a long time
| fdroid-lover). but this ruling is nuts to me, particularly where
| it says google "must give rival third-party app stores access to
| the full catalog of Google Play apps"
|
| 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...
| 015a wrote:
| One counter-take to this is the web itself: There's no curation
| or incentive structure to the web, yet it thrives in ways far
| outpacing the walled garden app stores.
| m463 wrote:
| > where every app store has the same apps
|
| 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.
| sigmar wrote:
| dyson doesn't sell third party stuff. If ikea was forced to
| sell all their chairs at every store, but only for 3 years.
| are people looking for chairs going to have better options
| for where to get chairs at the end of the 3 years? I think
| they'll just be confused and go to their previous buying
| habits (namely their favorite furniture store or
| google/epic/samsung app stores). I expect a mess with a lot
| of unintended consequences, such as conditioning people to
| think all third party app stores are the exact same, which
| could harm distribution methods like fdroid (though epic
| might be happy with that type of outcome)
| al_borland wrote:
| And what happens at the end of the 3 years? If apps are
| pulled, are people who downloaded the apps through those
| alt-stores going to lose access to updates, causing
| security issues or a support nightmare when the users don't
| see new features?
|
| We'll see Android users needing to have multiple app stores
| just to get all the apps they want/need, along with the
| updates. From a user experience point of view, that sounds
| worse, even if the competition is meant to make things
| better.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > 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.
|
| The horrors of free will and choice.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| It's straight depressing that Google, who has allowed loading
| third party apks since 2008, is the one punished when their
| competitor with higher market share doesn't even allow that.
|
| 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.
| artursapek wrote:
| I should also be able to sell any food I make at home at my local
| grocery store.
| kernal wrote:
| Google will win on appeal.
| dmvdoug wrote:
| For all the people commenting on the discrepancy between this
| ruling and the one in Apple's case: now perhaps you see the value
| of good lawyers. Apple was able to convince the judge in their
| case to fairly narrowly define the market segment at issue.
| Google failed to do that here. And no, it's not as simple as
| saying they're the same so this will get overturned on appeal to
| stay consistent with the Apple ruling. The market segment
| definition is case-specific and fact-intensive.
| gerash wrote:
| Good lawyers or BS legal system?
| gerash wrote:
| If the court is less consistent in its ruling than perhaps any
| tennager in the US in this case then I wonder what other cases
| they are adjudicating
| pfdietz wrote:
| > 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)
|
| Woot! I'll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| But not on iOS.
| qwertox wrote:
| Next up in the TODO list:
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-07 23:00 UTC)