Google to Be Sued by States Over Alleged Play Store Abuse (bloomberg.com) 23
The attorneys general of 36 states and Washington, D.C., sued Google "alleging that the company illegally abused its power over developers that distribute apps through the Google Play store on mobile devices," according to Bloomberg. From the report: State attorneys general are targeting the fees Google takes from developers for purchases and subscriptions inside apps. The complaint was filed by 36 states and the District of Columbia in San Francisco federal court Wednesday. The complaint marks a new attack by government officials in the U.S. against the search engine's business practices. The Justice Department and a group of states filed separate complaints over Google's search business last year, while another state coalition sued over Google's digital advertising business. The states are taking on Google even after a federal judge in Washington last week threw out their antitrust lawsuit against Facebook. That case accused Facebook of illegally crushing competition by buying Instagram and WhatsApp because it saw them as threats to its business. The judge said the states waited too long to challenge the acquisitions.
Think Of The Consumers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully this will show Just how ridiculous all these so-called "Anti-Trust" Memes/Movements have gotten.
I guess that All Stores that charge a "Listing Fee" or that make Any amount of Profit whatsoever in some way engage in "Anti-competitive behavior", and must be stopped to protect the consumers (Think of the Consumers!) at all costs!
Nevermind that for decades, brick and mortar resellers that had "Catalogs" would not only make a profit (horrors!) (which is historically almost always more than the 30% that essentially all App Stores charge); but would also Charge a Fee (typically $10,000 or more per item per year).
Re: (Score:2)
His point was that the behavior wasn’t anti-competitive and no rational human being would mistake it as being anti-competitive.
I hate Google as much as the next guy but this is a dumb thing to go after them for. Unfortunately, the things I hate Google for are all legal here in the U.S., so it would take legislators, not attorneys general to do something about it.
This lawsuit sounds like Microsoft cashing in on their many lobbying IOUs.
Donate to an open source project if you want more mobile OS options
Re: (Score:2)
the failure to address anti-competitive behavior in the past
You're begging the question. Before you can talk about a failure to address anti-competitive behaviour you need to point out what behaviour is anti-competitive.
Google does some anti-competitive things. Charging fees and specifying terms of services which are equal to all companies who wish to list in the Play Store is not one of them. Even in the EU which has far stronger antitrust laws they don't even consider this an issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Google does some anti-competitive things. Charging fees and specifying terms of services which are equal to all companies who wish to list in the Play Store is not one of them.
Sure and from the article (I know):
"Google was accused of paying Samsung Electronics Co., the largest Android manufacturer, to ensure that the Korean company didn’t develop its own competing app store. Additionally, after Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc. began distributing its app outside of Google’s store, Google “bought off” developers to dissuade them from doing the same, according to the complaint. Details of those payouts were blacked out in the complaint."
Now I don't know whether
Re: (Score:2)
You're begging the question. Before you can talk about a failure to address anti-competitive behaviour you need to point out what behaviour is anti-competitive.
It's like if I want to live in a house, I have to pay rent to the owner. We need to stop this egregious behavior, and allow me to pay whoever I want to live in his house. And if I outright buy his house, I should b able to pay myself, not the owner.
Are grocery stores and other big box stores next? (Score:2)
Grocery stores sell shelf space and premium locations to vendors. Other large retailers do similar. The app store models really are no different than the models that have existed for decades in brick and mortar. Want your product listed for sale? Pay the price.
While there might only be two dominant mobile device platforms versus a handful of large grocery stores, it still represents what the market has settled on. Developers weren't eager to support a third platform when Microsoft was still trying. Fra
Re: (Score:1)
Besides which, any app maker can also sell it directly. They don't have to go through Google's store.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is much more dramatic than you state. The top 10 grocery store chains control only 58% of the US grocery market. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] By contrast, two mobile OSes control about 85% of the market. https://gs.statcounter.com/ven... [statcounter.com] In other words, there are no real alternatives. If you want to sell software for mobile phones, you must deal with Apple and/or Google.
Also, grocery stores have a profit margin of about 2.2%. https://thegrocerystoreguy.com... [thegrocerystoreguy.com] By contrast, app stores have
Re: Are grocery stores and other big box stores ne (Score:3)
That's like saying you need to be an IT pro to install Winblows software. Sideloading on Android is pathetically easy and can be done from a web link if you enable sideloading. It's a single option enabled in Settings.
If you aren't willing to figure out how to use your handheld computer safely and properly you shouldn't have one.
Now Apple makes sideloading and gaining full access to your phone a nightmare. They also make using alternate app stores near impossible. They actually have a case with iOS devices
Re: (Score:1)
If you aren't willing to figure out how to use your handheld computer safely and properly you shouldn't have one.
Side-loading is not a form of "using" a phone / computer. It's a form of maintenance. No one would say that only those who perform their own car upgrades and maintenance should be able to own one. Cars are designed to be usable by mechanically-inclined people, and those who are not. Phones too should be accessible to technically-inclined people, and those who are not.
Maybe sideloading can be done via web link. But there are no automatic updates for side-loaded apps, you have to go through the side-load proc
Re: (Score:2)
If you want automated updates in your side-loaded apps, code your own app updater and use it to distribute your updates automatically. While you're at it, build and maintain the server infrastructure that hosts the updates, and the administrative infrastructure that checks apps for malware before you inflict a huge mess on your customers. The only reason it's necessary to "go through a bunch of security warnings every time" is because you are making the decision to manually install something.
Sideloading i
Re: (Score:2)
You're kind of making my point. "Write your own updater." Of course, if you're a programmer, you can do that! Perhaps your circle of friends and family only has people who are good with technology. Most of us have family and friends who know next to nothing about computers, and should never be allowed to side-load anything.
False equivalence (Score:1)
And What About the App Store? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Waste of time anyway. While both companies do things you can legitimately consider as being anti-competitive, charging fees and specifying terms of service to access an app store is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally you wouldn't sue two companies in the same lawsuit.
Do you really want to deal with the force of Google and Apple Lawyers working together against you?
We have numerous cases of states and countries suing Apple for similar charges. And Google is like you go states and countries, stick it to Apple!
It makes no sense (Score:2)
It makes no sense. With Apple the whole argument is that they take the cut while not allowing any other method of side-loading/alternative store etc. It's still a flimsy argument IMHO, as iOS phones are definitely not a monopoly in the smartphone market and most iOS users enjoy their walled garden - the rest of us can just get an Android phone, usually for much less money!
If you go after the Google Play store, are we saying companies are not allowed to make profit for developing and supporting an online sto
Re: (Score:2)
Well in a sense this is exactly the reason that Epic and others going after Apple has nothing to do with "allow 3rd party app stores".
Epic doesn't want their own app store necessarily. What they want is to dictate the terms by which they use Apple's app store and they themselves have asserted that they have a problem with Google too because "3rd party app stores are not economically viable." Meaning that they recognize that the vast majority of users are not going to install an app store that doesn't come
Crux of the case (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole case made no sense to me based on what the summary said, so I skimmed the article to see what it was really about. From the article:
Google was accused of paying Samsung Electronics Co., the largest Android manufacturer, to ensure that the Korean company didn’t develop its own competing app store. Additionally, after Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc. began distributing its app outside of Google’s store, Google “bought off” developers to dissuade them from doing the same, according to the complaint. Details of those payouts were blacked out in the complaint.
In other words, this is about running an “open” system that allows competing app stores while secretly spiking competing app stores in an anticompetitive fashion so as to force users back into your app store. That’s the issue.
The case additionally tries to paint the 30% commission and other forms of control being exerted by Google (and thus, implicitly, by Apple) in a bad light, but it doesn’t seem to suggest there’s anything illegal about them. It’s really just the spiking of competing app stores that these attorneys general are going after.