Pretty wild to me that the mobile platform that has majority market share in the US, doesn’t allow users to install apps from outside of their own tightly-controlled store, requires all purchases to be served through that store with a platform fee, doesn’t allow users to sideload their own apps, doesn’t allow entire categories of apps like browser engines and game streaming, and doesn’t even allow users to set their own preferred apps in many cases is not a monopoly… but Android somehow is??
I’m not about to defend Google’s business model or dealings. But like… I can and do use an alternative app store on Android. I install whatever browser I want. I can and do replace the default apps, up to and including the home screen. Like, if I don’t want to use Google stuff, I don’t have to. I can even unlock the bootloader using a built-in feature and install a whole-ass OS.
But Epic—one of the most anticompetitive companies in gaming—has convinced a jury *that’s* anticompetitive??
It just feels like a massive company is butthurt about another massive company not giving them preferential treatment. I honestly do look forward to more regulatory pressure on Google and these massive platforms, but it’s *wild* to me that Apple was able to shrug this off when they are insanely more anticompetitive in every way.
Like Epic knows this and exploits it; they have their own game store you can install in about three taps and then they completely own the experience. They could sell whatever games they want there, using their own payment system, and keep all the profit. And they do for in-app purchases. They don’t even have that option on iOS, and yet they play ball with Apple.
To clarify my thoughts from this thread, I don’t necessarily disagree with the findings, as I didn’t closely follow the arguments! If Google was anticompetitive and abused their position, then yeah, make them pay *and* make the market better for consumers.
*At the same time*, I won’t cheer for Epic who has their own anticompetitive history, a massive stockpile of cash, and the means to publish a competitive game store on Android—which is not something they can even do on US-market-majority iOS.
@cassidy I’m not too familiar with the US justice system, but to me it seems like subconscious preferential treatment of Apple, since it seems like most people in the US use iPhones and Google is branded as the „evil privacy nightmare“ company. Lock-in and monopolism seem to be the Apple way, not to be questioned, but probably mostly because its users don’t know anything else and start rationalising shortcomings in a kind of sunken cost fallacy.
@cassidy ...does one of those three taps involve the Google Play App Store?
@jubilee no, and that's the point. You can just bypass it completely.
@cassidy That was significantly more than 3 taps, tbh.
@cassidy From what I understand, the main crux of the verdict is that Google claims to have alternatives to their ecosystem that makes them not a monopoly -- and then wheels and deals behind closed doors to keep all the major players from using those alternatives.
@cassidy Is Epic actually arguing that Apple is not a monopoly though? It seems quite likely that both Apple and Google exert monopoly power over their respective ecosystems.
On the Android side, Google effectively has a monopoly on software distribution. And the UI doesn't exactly encourage you to install more stores or sideload apps.
They then use that position to force the use of their payment system for in-app purchases (except in a few countries that ban tying the services like this).
@jamesh @cassidy I was going to say - didn't they make the argument that Apple *is* a monopoly during their trial against Apple last...wait, decided back in 2021? Time moves faster than it felt it did, although an Appeal happened in 2023.
Which is to say, they've made the argument elsewhere, and are focusing on Google because of the similarities there.
@cassidy Yes, you can install "alternative stuff", but you're still owned by GMS rootkit in your phone (if you don't spend energy, time, knowledge, and lot of troubles to install custom ROM). Anyway if you do, forget about banks and "secure" applications which rely on Google proprietary components...
We're not here because we're free; we're here because we're not free.
@okias I mean you can completely derail the argument by talking about unrelated things, sure, but that doesn’t change the actual issue being argued: that Google has an anticompetitive hold over the mobile app ecosystem.
(The entirety of iOS is an Apple rootkit by your definition, and there you don’t even get the pressure relief valve of being able to unlock a bootloader and install whatever OS you want on the hardware you “own,” like you’ve been able to do on every single Google phone…)
@cassidy Complaining about one (major, yes) game ecosystem and publisher controlling it is NOT comparable to Google and Apple duopoly. You can easily live every day and play different games, but you cannot exist in modern world without a functional phone.
@cassidy What’s “wild” about that? Apple controls only the devices made by Apple. Google controls the devices made by virtually *everyone else*. What about the word “monopoly” was incomprehensible?
Android’s global marketshare of phones is over 70%. Do you not understand the meaning of the word “majority”?
@gcvsa Apple has over a 50% market share in the US, and Android is the only platform between the two that actually allows you to use alternative app stores, install apps from outside of an app store, and bypass the default app store altogether. Google doesn’t control what apps you can install, whereas Apple literally does—and Apple has used their position to block entire categories of apps like browsers that actually compete with Safari and game streaming services that compete with Apple Arcade.
@gcvsa I'm not saying regulators shouldn't pressure Google, but also, the platform is far, *far* more open than Apple’s which has a *single manufacturer* absolutely controlling *the majority of smartphones* in the country, with zero real competition allowed on their platform.
@gcvsa so the fact that the majority mobile platform in the US (you know, where the case took place and the place where US regulators have jurisdiction) was able to shrug a similar suit off a couple years back is what is wild to me. Apple fully controls that majority platform on which Epic literally cannot offer an alternative game store, while Epic *does* offer a three-click install for Fortnite that easily bypasses Google’s entire app store on Android.
@cassidy I feel like this is one of those problems inherent to doing regulation via litigation instead of uniform legislation
@alex yeah, I agree. Maybe as a result it can push legislative change that would improve choice and competition on both platforms—but it doesn’t seem likely to me.
@cassidy Maybe one day the US will remember how to write regulations again
@anubis2814 yep, same. In some ways it has gotten better over the years, but unless/until regulators force Apple to actually support sideloading/alternative app distribution, I don’t think I could put up with it.