Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Android Businesses Google

Match Sues Google Over App Store Billing Rules (bloomberg.com) 31

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Match Group accused Alphabet's Google in a lawsuit of acting as a monopolist with its app store billing rules, the latest escalation in a brawl over the mobile-app industry. From a report: Match Group, which operates dating apps such as Tinder and OkCupid, alleged that Google breaks federal and state laws and abuses its power with a requirement that app developers use its billing system on Android devices. "Ten years ago, Match Group was Google's partner. We are now its hostage," Match Group said in a complaint filed Monday in northern California federal court.

"Blinded by the possibility of getting an ever-greater cut of the billions of dollars users spend each year on Android apps, Google set out to monopolize the market for how users pay for their Android apps." Google, like Apple, has faced enormous recent legal and political scrutiny over the commission fees and billing restrictions both companies apply to paid services in their app stores. Congress is currently weighing a bill to force Google and Apple to change their business models.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Match Sues Google Over App Store Billing Rules More

Match Sues Google Over App Store Billing Rules

Comments Filter:

  • If anyone gets a verdict against Google, saying they have to allow sellers in their store who aren't using Google checkout, I'm going to set up shop in my local Walmart.

    I'll set up a table selling stuff, with my own cash register

    Walmart won't get anything from the sales. If they try to kick me out of the store I'll point out the ruling that people running a store can't stop people from selling stuff of their own inside your store.

    • Why does this sound completely crazy and rational at the same time?

    • Sure, makes sense, provided the customer paid for, and owns, the wallmart like they do the phone.

      • The customer doesn't own the Google Play store, or the Walmart store.

        They go to the Walmart store to buy stuff for their house.
        They go to the Google Play store to buy stuff for their phone.
        They go to the pool store to buy stuff for their pool.

        They can't set up shop selling stuff in the pool store using their own cash register.
        They can't set up shop selling stuff in the Play store using their own cash register.
        They can't set up shop selling stuff in the Walmart store using their own cash register.

    • Google, Apple etc. are abusing the dominance of their app stores. Very little of this actually has to do with security and "customers love a walled-garden".

      Here's a slightly different analogy: Imagine if you bought Sony PlayStation at Walmart and 30% of your PlayStation purchases (games, services etc.) went to Walmart, simply because that's where your initial purchase was made. Your hardware capability is not reliant on Walmart and doesn't need anything but an internet connection with Sony (or whoever So

      • Not quite. PlayStation does take a cut of all games sold and itâ(TM)s likely in a similar ballpark, same as Microsoft, even without being the store itself. And you can bet a car manufacturer makes a pretty penny on all of the genuine accessories - the fuel analogy is more akin to the electricity required to charge a phone. It may be worth limiting the amount for a public good reason, though given market forces have established current prices work we probably shouldnâ(TM)t expect much of a price

      • Analogies aren't arguments. Cars aren't software. If I buy a car, shouldn't I expect to receive regular updates that add functionality - free of charge? No, because cars aren't software. If my car randomly stops, do I simply restart the engine and carry on my way? No, software is different.

        The best way to use an analogy is as an illustration of an argument. If find right, the analogy is effector a rephrasing of an argument for clarity.

    • And I'll be setting up a table on top of your table and selling stuff from my table. There will be a ladder in your way, but you can't kick my store out of your store inside of a store.

      Physical world != digital world.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )

      If anyone gets a verdict against Google, saying they have to allow sellers in their store who aren't using Google checkout, I'm going to set up shop in my local Walmart.

      I'll set up a table selling stuff, with my own cash register

      Walmart won't get anything from the sales. If they try to kick me out of the store I'll point out the ruling that people running a store can't stop people from selling stuff of their own inside your store.

      Well, in that scenario you would be trespassing. It would be more like if Walmart allowed you to stock your merchandise on their shelves but when someone wanted to buy your items and went to the checkout, there was a separate cash register (you I guess, sitting at your table) where they would pay you for just those specific items.

      A huge disadvantage with this is that because your sales aren't going through Walmart, you lose ALL the sales data and metrics that would have been available to you if you let Wa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Anil ( 7001 )

        That's not too different from Consignment shopping. But in the case of consignment shops, the store keeping needs to deal with everything around the product (display, advertise, stocking, etc) except for the product itself.

        You sell your goods at Walmart. Walmart takes a cut. But you don't have to sit there and man your table with your product.

        I think that is different from the Play Store case here. Play store is just adding a fee for the right to be on Android.
        Maybe if they made alternative stores 1st c

    • WalMart Security would escort you from the premises anyway. You would then go broke trying to prove your claim in a court of law against WalMart's team of highly paid lawyers.

    • F-Droid still can't update apps in the background on a on a non-rooted phone.

      Google prevents competition. Walmart doesn't prevent you from going to Kmart.

      • So you're telling me if my wife doesn't root her phone, she actually has to click the notification to ALLOW F-Droid to replace the app with a new and different version? They don't let F-Droid invisibly replace your apps in the background? I'm absolutely livid about this. :)

  • Ten years ago, Match Group was Google's partner. We are now its hostage

    Wrong, you were always the hostage, just treated better ten years ago.

    This is true for relying on ANY other company that acts as a gateway for a service you are selling. YouTube, App Store, Play Store, whatever. You are always going to be working under rules they set, that may destroy you at any moment.

    If every single app of any significant size in the App Store does not have a web app waiting in the wings to deploy, I don't even have

  • ...and tell the users to download it from their website, and sideload it on their phone. Problem solved.

    • Or, just ditch the app altogether and make it a fricking website like it should have been in the first place.

    • Or, have the app in the store update to being one that just points people to the website, where they can choose to sideload a "pro" version or just use the service at the site.

  • By being part of the sales process google get to see who is buying from where. This is all part of google's grab and abuse of personal data that feeds its advertising business. For this reason alone google should be forbidden to insist on being a payment processor.

  • So Match can sideboard apps onto Android services, but prefers to use the Playstore. However, they want Google to allow them to use a different payment processor.

    In short, they donâ(TM)t have to use the Play store, but want a judge to allow them to use it in their terms.

    Part of me thinks this wasnâ(TM)t a problem until they stopped growing, and now need to justify either a ridiculous valuation or the CEOâ(TM)s salary.

    Sometimes growth is finite!

  • No doubt side loading will become more preveleant because of this. Let's just hope it's enough to make it the norm, and Google as a gatekeeper disappears.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Close