Technology

60052 readers

2859 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1517

Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by flop_leash_973@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bleuthoot@lemmy.world 93 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

EDIT: Added source from where I read it.

~~From some other comment I read,~~ it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google's stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.

This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:

The "this doesn't make sense" crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store... but we can can all guess how well that would have went... not well. So the open source route makes sense.

Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn't control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That's not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn't comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That's appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they'd have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn't do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I'm not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn't be a surprise.

Source

There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can't find it anymore.

[–] Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn't seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can't sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.

Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.

I've heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?

I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.

[–] Tertle950@lemmy.basedcount.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae

Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lawyers are bad, but I'm starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the 'wrong' judge assigned to your case and you're done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?

[–] inverted_deflector@startrek.website 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for pulling forward a comment to explain this better. I thought the two cases were different but didn’t remember how.

[–] Phrodo_00@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True, but that's more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn't have any relation. As far as epic goes, they're only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it's allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)