Google Files a Lawsuit That Could Kick Tinder Out of the Play Store (engadget.com) 59
Google has counter-sued Match seeking monetary damages and a judgement that would let it kick Tinder and the group's other dating apps out of the Play Store, Bloomberg has reported. Engadget reports: Earlier this year, Match sued Google alleging antitrust violations over a decision requiring all Android developers to process "digital goods and services" payments through the Play Store billing system. Following the initial lawsuit in May, Google and Match reached a temporary agreement allowing Match to remain on the Play Store and use its own payments system. Google also agreed to make a "good faith" effort to address Match's billing concerns. Match, in turn, was to make an effort to offer Google's billing system as an alternative.
However, Google parent Alphabet claims that Match Group now wants to avoid paying "nothing at all" to Google, including its 15 to 30 percent Play Store fees, according to a court filing. "Match Group never intended to comply with the contractual terms to which it agreed... it would also place Match Group in an advantaged position relative to other app developers," the document states. Match group said that Google's Play Store policies violate federal and state laws. "Google doesn't want anyone else to sue them so their counterclaims are designed as a warning shot," Match told Bloomberg in a statement. "We are confident that our suit, alongside other developers, the US Department of Justice and 37 state attorneys general making similar claims, will be resolved in our favor early next year."
However, Google parent Alphabet claims that Match Group now wants to avoid paying "nothing at all" to Google, including its 15 to 30 percent Play Store fees, according to a court filing. "Match Group never intended to comply with the contractual terms to which it agreed... it would also place Match Group in an advantaged position relative to other app developers," the document states. Match group said that Google's Play Store policies violate federal and state laws. "Google doesn't want anyone else to sue them so their counterclaims are designed as a warning shot," Match told Bloomberg in a statement. "We are confident that our suit, alongside other developers, the US Department of Justice and 37 state attorneys general making similar claims, will be resolved in our favor early next year."
Match is a sketchy service (Score:1)
Re: Match is a sketchy service (Score:4, Informative)
I have a very busy friend who used Match.com looking for someone. She had a disagreement with a perspective âoematchâ who showed up at her workplace unannounced, insisted she give him âoeattentionâ and was upset that she wouldnâ(TM)t offer her services (she was a masseuse) for free or leave work early (she had a full schedule). They had gone on just one date prior.
He reported herâ¦saying she invited him on a date at her workplace and expected him to pay for it - that she used Match for advertising.
Match terminated her paid account with prejudice and refused to compensate her with a prorated refund and wouldnâ(TM)t listen to her side of the story.
Writing skills? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do people manage to become reporters with such poor writing skills:
"now wants to avoid paying "nothing at all" to Google"
If you avoid paying nothing, then you are paying something. I don't think this captures the facts of the issue correctly.
Re: Writing skills? (Score:3)
13 By choosing to make its apps available through Google Play, Match Group has ready
14 access to billions of users and potential users of its apps and has earned hundreds of millions of
15 dollars as a result. Yet Match Group wants more. It now attempts to ignore the terms to which it
16 expressly agreed and further enrich itself by contending it should pay nothing at all to
17 Google.
So it looks like the parent article screwed up the gramma
Re: (Score:2)
"I could care less about this editorial mistake."
Re: (Score:2)
Party's Over? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Google and Apple are starting to see the writing on the wall that their 30% greed party is coming to an end.
I know in the EU there's now a lot of regulation going through different systems about exactly that.
If you charge 30% and claim that's needed for 'development and security', but from your profit statements it turns out you only use at most 4% of that money to actually do that, then you might just have a bit of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There was literally _zero_ technical reason for this change. It's pure greed.
My TV, which uses Google OS, which the TV manufacturer is already paying Google to use, has now disabled payment processing in the Prime and Apple TV apps, because of this. So now I have to go through a bunch of extra steps if I want to rent a movie from Amazon. I refuse to rent movies from Google, on principle, because of this horseshit.
Basically they added nothing, except the strong steer to divert all rental fees towards themsel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care — and neither should you. It is, quite literally, not your business.
Now this is your right, and I applaud your exercising it.
Re: (Score:1)
Society and government allow a business to exist. If the business is detrimental, society and government are allowed to close the business. What's so hard about that concept?
Re: (Score:2)
It is called a monopoly.
Just like you could always install mozilla instead of complainig about internet explorer being bundled with windows.
I don't really see what is so difficult to understand it. I see a basic lack of understanding of social structures in you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: If you don't like it, build your own (Score:2)
There is absolutely nothing funny about it. The world is not subservient to whatever anyone wants to do with impunity. From the age of kings and lords we have shifted to a world where life and expectations of most people are to be respected and that is a good thing. What is hard to understand about it? Diagree, sure... But pretending that it is stupid is just...
What has got store to do with it? Do you also find it illogical and funny that it is illegal to enslave your children?
Re: (Score:3)
Now if folks in Small Town stop shopping at Walmart because they don't sell SmallTown cheese, I bet Walmart will find a way to sell me my damned delicious cheese!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There was literally _zero_ technical reason for this change
I don't care â" and neither should you. It is, quite literally, not your business.
If he bought the device then it certainly is his business. Saying other people shouldn't care about things because you don't care about them is self-centered. No one should care what you care about. And lo! No one does.
Re: (Score:2)
If he bought an Android device, he has options that do not require him to use the app store.
If you bought Apple, then... well.... you ought to have known what you were signing up for in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
If you bought Apple, then... well.... you ought to have known what you were signing up for in the first place.
Corporations are legal fictions which are granted in the name of alleged public interest. If the corporation's goal is to be predatory and anticompetitive, that's not in the public interest, and there's no reason it should even be permitted to continue to exist.
Re:If you don't like it, build your own (Score:4, Interesting)
> just walk away.
Please continue: "just walk away and use ... instead". What, you can't think of any other option because Google and Apple are a duopoly?
Google cornered 70% or more of the market and illegally used its dominant market position to squash competition in another market - payment processing. US DoJ should use Sherman Act to go after Apple & Google for their abuse of their monopoly positions.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for confirming, there is no monopoly — this is important. Our laws diverge from the properly free market, because the market is not infinite. But duopolies aren't monopolies, and there is no justification for abandoning the free market principles in this case.
Neah, the Pay Store was in the product from the beginning. They didn't add it later, so fail...
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not important at all.
This special breed of "duopoly" is not actually a duopoly. It's two monopolies side by side.
It would have been a duopoly of there was some sort of competition taking place, which is not the case.
Say I am using Google's services and for some reason I am pissed at them. I have to throw my phone away and buy completely different hardware from Apple, together with a variety of ancillary hardware; I then have to buy again all apps I had bought before; some services would not work we
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, bullshit. It's neither. You can claim any business to be a monopoly if you artificially restrict the defined market. "Joe's Store" has a "monopoly" on businesses at 123 Main St. So fucking what?
Does Apple or Google have a monopoly on phones? No. Cellular phones? No. Operating Systems? No. Computing Devices? No. Portable devices? No. Apple has a "monopoly" on iOS, and Google has a "monopoly" on Android. So
Parent is 100% correct, mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an absurd self-contradiction. Congratulations on joining the ranks of "meatless meatballs", smirking quietly...
Re: (Score:2)
found the Google fanboy
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that writing strong opinions in italics somehow makes them more convincing. I can assure you: it does not.
"Monopoly" is a red herring. This is the domain of competition law and falling afoul of the law does not require that the company in question is a monopoly.
and there is no justification for abandoning the free market principles in this case.
Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever triggers the assholes like yourself is good and proper.
Freedom is a principle people fought — and died — for. It is hardly, "just an opinion". Oh, and stop presuming my gender, deepshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever triggers the assholes like yourself is good and proper.
You don't really get what "triggers" means in either the original sense in this context or the modern sense from Gen Z do you? Though your attempts at using modern slang are as amusing as they are baffling.
Freedom is a principle
Like I said, writing in italics is not the same as good rhetoric. After a while the straining sound you make with all that emphasis gives more the impression of constipation than competence.
Freedom is a principle people
Re: (Score:2)
Neah, the Pay Store was in the product from the beginning. They didn't add it later, so fail...
It should be noted whilst this is true for the US, a lot of other markets did have the Play store added later. Australia for one. Google did design it to be included from the word go, but it's rollout internationally was phased so it's an easy misunderstanding to make.
Also I largely agree, Google is definitely not a monopoly, the situation is barely a duopoly with Android being open. Whilst Google may not be a saint, they're definitely not abusive like Microsoft was (or Apple wants to be).
Re: (Score:2)
Competition laws in most countries have nothing to do with monopolies. They normally deal with abuse of a dominant market position. Both Apple and Google have definitely that type of market share. So then it comes down to "do they abuse it"
Re: If you don't like it, build your own (Score:3)
Let's assume Google Store was the only one in town... still the Sherman Act won't come into play. Why?
Because Android can be fully forked. Because Google doesn't prevent mfgs from releasing their own OS or use a 3rd party. Because users aren't locked into using only the vanilla OS.
You can literally copy the OS and put out a version that doesn't use the PStore. That simple. The industry can just come up with their own standards and allow multiple stores and move on.
They don't because they clearly see a
Re: (Score:1)
In the end Play store has value because it is well known and on most phones (android ones) and has the users. This is why Microsoft broug
Re: (Score:3)
You can literally copy the OS and put out a version that doesn't use the PStore. That simple. The industry can just come up with their own standards and allow multiple stores and move on.
Also, other stores can be (and have been) set up, and users can choose to use those in addition to the Play Store. I use F-Droid in addition to Play, for example.
Maybe all these guys should be blaming Samsung, LG, and Sony for locking their OS to PStore.
They don't. Samsung has its own app store in addition to Google's and as I already noted, users can install additional app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft never had a monopoly in your reasoning then either.
>Because Android can be fully forked.
Because other OS's were available for installation on PCs. BSD's for one.
>Because Google doesn't prevent mfgs from releasing their own OS or use a 3rd party.
Nobody stopped MFG's from installing 386BSD on new computers and selling them. Or Linux when it was released for 386.
>Because users aren't locked into using only the vanilla OS.
Again, a user could use BSD / Linux / pay to have UNIX ported.
Yet MS. h
Re: If you don't like it, build your own (Score:3)
Maybe YOU should read up on why MS and ATT landlines were considered an _abusive_monopoly_ (it's actually ok to just be a monopoly)... I lived through it so it wasn't "history" for me.
Microsoft was barely found guilty because they had restrictive contracts with the hw mfgs where they prevented them from installing other OSs. You literally had to subsidize the Windows OS cost if you wanted to use another OS.
MS tried to use its OS monopoly to give their browser and Java products a winning advantage. Arguing
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that Google+Apple are a duopoly, and that's bad.
But I don't agree that there are no alternatives at all. These dating sites can be accessed from any web browser, no need to use a phone app. Done.
There is also the option of using a dumbphone and skipping all these apps completely. People who can't remember life before smart phones balk at this notion because they are addicts. Or they accuse dumbphone users of being antisocial losers. None of this is true at all! These are just comforti
Re: (Score:2)
US DoJ should use Sherman Act to go after Apple & Google for their abuse of their monopoly positions.
Unfortunately in the USA you often need to prove material damage to consumers as a result of your actions when you apply the Sherman Act. You're better off hoping the EU do something. The bar there is significantly lower.
But ultimately being big doesn't mean anything. You need to prove actual monopolistic practices, and simply charging 30% isn't one.
Re: (Score:1)
It can be 1% or 99% for all I care — it is a Google's product, and if you don't like the terms, just walk away. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp? Neither Google nor Apple owe you anything, except what they promised.
I don't see, how government can have any say on this matter, but European societies have never been particularly free, so it does not surprise me...
If the EU were actually concerned they would do a lot more than regulate. Especially Tinder has turned the dating market into a disaster zone. Several things wrong with it. When the #metoo era started, Tinder became a place where men could approach women with less concern about bothering them and getting in hot water.
But there is a problem. it's called the 80/20 rule. 80 percent of women find only 20 percent of men at all attractive. And with that being the case, 80 percent + of men are marginalized, and
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fucking INCEL rant!
Ah yes, Here's your problem ya little coward.
I am not an involuntary celibate.
People like you - who I'll note are true cowards too cowardly to use even a pseudonym have taken the term incel and used it as something to throw out if they disagree with someone. Might as well call me a raspberry or a brake lining for all incel means any more. An incel is an involuntary celibate, and should no more be ridiculed than a body positive woman who is 5 foot two and 400 pounds.
And the third thing - if you hadn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It scares the hell out of me that there are people with thoughts like this out in the wild.
You should give at least a little quoted text so we know who you are replying to.
Anyhow, I take my info from the ladies who are upset about the dating market, and complain about how they are traumatized by the males they select to engage with. While some guys are pumping and dumping, a lot of women are being abused emotionally if not physically. And in their pursuit, they have extended the dating years too far. It is a situation that has amplified sexual biological traits.
Some coward even called me a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You lost me a long time ago. You went from some strange stance on 80 percent of men being marginalized by dating apps to somehow white-knighting yourself into the ultimate womyns hero. Does not compute.
I do not conform to the narratives presented by either the so called red pills or the feminists.
I do conform to a rationale of not claiming that one side or the other of a internecine genital based war is the declared villain in that war. This based on the fact that genitals do not make for unquestionable right or wrong. On either side, it is always a prior defined group that is claimed at fault. I find that does not stand up to scrutiny. Others find it a handy way to avoid thinking.
I manage to piss off
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Google and Apple are starting to see the writing on the wall that their 30% greed party is coming to an end.
I know in the EU there's now a lot of regulation going through different systems about exactly that.
If you charge 30% and claim that's needed for 'development and security', but from your profit statements it turns out you only use at most 4% of that money to actually do that, then you might just have a bit of a problem.
The thing about Google's 30% is that it's optional. You can release an application for Android however the hell you like. If you can find a platform to securely run payments for 4% (erm, you cant find one to run it for $0.04... the per transaction fee from the bank alone are more than that) then go for it, it's also on you to get users to trust that source.
30% sounds like a lot... but remember that's only $0.30 per $1 transaction and a lot of fees for card transactions are fixed. It's nowhere near the sa
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what the big deal is... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least with Android you can self-install an app if you want to. You don't *NEED* their app store.
Google and Apple could bloody well charge 90% commission if they wanted. It's their own fucking stores, and they aren't obligated to have to sell anything made by anyone else to anyone. The only reason that they do it at all is because with a diverse set of applications, it increases the attractiveness of their own brand, but the companies don't actually *owe* anything to anyone. The fact that Apple's
Re: (Score:3)
I think Google and Apple are starting to see the writing on the wall that their 30% greed party is coming to an end.
I know in the EU there's now a lot of regulation going through different systems about exactly that.
If you charge 30% and claim that's needed for 'development and security', but from your profit statements it turns out you only use at most 4% of that money to actually do that, then you might just have a bit of a problem.
30% is pretty good compared to what developers got before App Stores. You had to upfront all costs, find a distributor who could get you into stores, cover returns, wind up with unsold inventory; all in hopes of selling enough to make a living while gettin 30% of the sale price, if you are lucky. Then there was the whole problem of piracy.
App stores greatly reduce the up front costs, handle all the bookkeeping, give developers access to a worldwide user base, making developing a new app a lot less of a fi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great (Score:2)
Now do Facebook.
So we fuck only iPhone-Users? (Score:2)
Asking for a friend.