Google's App Store Ruled an Illegal Monopoly, as a Jury Sides With Epic Games (wired.com) 103
A jury in San Francisco unanimously found (PDF) that Google violated California and federal antitrust laws through deals that stifled competition for its mobile app store. "The verdict delivers the first significant US courtroom loss for big tech in the years-long campaign by rivals, regulators, and prosecutors to tame the power of internet gatekeepers," reports Wired. From the report: The lawsuit next moves to a remedies phase, meaning a judge as soon as the coming weeks will hear arguments about and decide whether to order changes to Google's business practices. Users of devices powered by Google's Android operating system could find more app options to choose from, at lower prices, if Google is forced to allow downloads of rival app stores from Play or share a greater portion of sales with developers selling digital items inside their apps.
The ruling came in a case first filed in 2020 by Epic Games, known for its blockbuster game Fortnite and tools for developers, and argued before a jury since early November. The jury of nine -- a 10th juror dropped out early in the trial -- deliberated for three hours before reaching its verdict. They faced 11 questions such as defining product and geographic markets and whether Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct in those areas. Epic had accused Google of restricting smartphone makers, wireless carriers, and app developers from providing any competition to the Play store, which accounts for over 95 percent of all downloads onto Android phones in the US. Google had denied any wrongdoing, saying that its sole aim was to provide a safe and attractive experience to users, especially as it faced competition from Apple, its iPhone, and its App Store.
The ruling came in a case first filed in 2020 by Epic Games, known for its blockbuster game Fortnite and tools for developers, and argued before a jury since early November. The jury of nine -- a 10th juror dropped out early in the trial -- deliberated for three hours before reaching its verdict. They faced 11 questions such as defining product and geographic markets and whether Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct in those areas. Epic had accused Google of restricting smartphone makers, wireless carriers, and app developers from providing any competition to the Play store, which accounts for over 95 percent of all downloads onto Android phones in the US. Google had denied any wrongdoing, saying that its sole aim was to provide a safe and attractive experience to users, especially as it faced competition from Apple, its iPhone, and its App Store.
Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The article makes mention that it's "too cumbersome" to use another app store. I guess those are the same people who go to their car dealer to get new wiper blades, new battery, or tires installed. Go somewhere else and you might have to look up the part your car needs.
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
California needs to be bombed and left with the nastiest of fallout that nothing can survive there for thousands of years.
But then who would fund all the failing red states like Kentucky and Mississippi?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the law says anything about "as long as your main competitor is even worse than you!"
Apple and Google are a duopoly in the smartphone market. No one else has been able to break in, despite throwing tons of money at it. They were even able to crowd out Microsoft, with its much superior mobile OS (not referring to CE!). They refused to let Microsoft have a deal to put Google Search, GMail, and Google Maps, a critical set of apps, even if Microsoft offered to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Microsoft even want Google apps? They seem to prefer their own Bing search, Live Mail, and Bing Maps.
Re: (Score:1)
Did Microsoft even want Google apps? They seem to prefer their own Bing search, Live Mail, and Bing Maps.
Which would be enough if all they wanted to do was to sell phones to themselves but if they want to sell to the public then saying "well we've got Bing" is hardly a selling point.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, hell yes, they wanted it. It's one thing to push your own services, another to kill another pushing it. Google kept changing APIs when third party devs tried to create apps to replace the Google apps.
Re: (Score:2)
So fucking what? It's no different than Windows and MacOS on PC.
You aren't stuck with only the Google app store, as android lets you install anything you want through
It also isn't "too hard" to install a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK that's silly to make that parallel to having a preinstalled browser, something any OS should and does have.
"Back in the day," (as today) there was no barrier to getting another browser and installing it. There was no exclusive "store" you had to pay Microsoft a high fee to get into. Windows has never been a walled garden like that.
I find it hilarious, however, that Gabe Newell constantly pretends otherwise, however, as he runs his own game distribution system with high fees that's become a pretty effec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a separate product in 1995 because the internet was brand freaking new and OS companies back then had not yet built any yet, not because they weren't an inherent part of any computing device. Ever since, all OSes have come with a browser.
The case was doomed because it was a ridiculous basis for a suit, brought by Microsoft's sour grapes competitors. They had no lobbying arm in Washington at the time, but they learned they needed one!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's some cherry picking! You with that, buddy! :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything else is in house custom OEM built from AOSP sources and custom kernel modules. It's right in the name, Android OPEN SOURCE Project. If they want to include the Play Store they can, if they want to install 50 different stores they can as well. Or they can be like Amazon.
Amazon seems to be content not including the Google play store, instead having their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So on Android, because they control the platform within a market they've turned into a tight duopoly, one of these would need to be true, IMO, for it not to be monopolistic behavior:
1) app store is not restricted other than for security reasons, only tiny fees at most
2) the "normal" way of getting apps is not via a Store you preinstall.
3) Google does not have an excessively high market share, or it's easy for other platforms to break in to mobile. iOS+Android created a mobile duopoly so tight they were abl
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read more about the Sherman Anti-trust Act, a company doesn't have to own an entire market to be a monopoly. And I think more importantly in the Google case (although I can't wait for anti-trust experts to weigh in), the fact that Google was making secret deals to kill any possible competition and their internal conversations were literally saying that, makes it hard to argue they weren't acting in an anti-competitive way.
There's something baffling about the courts finding that Apple, whose OS is not licensed to anyone else and whose hardware deliberately and explicitly makes other app stores impossible, is not violating federal antitrust law while Google, whose OS is freely licensed to other hardware vendors and whose hardware explicitly allows side-loading of other app stores, somehow is in violation.
Paying someone for exclusivity is generally not an antitrust violation, except when that exclusivity prevents a competing store from even being able to exist. And the existence and success of Samsung's app store and Amazon's app store blow that argument out of the water. So IMO, by any reasonable standard, the courts got this one wrong.
Meanwhile, tying limitations, which prevent customers from buying things elsewhere, generally are an antitrust violation when the company doing the tying has significant market power, so the courts also got the Apple case wrong.
Basically, these cases upended decades of antitrust laws in ways that seem, at least on the surface, nonsensical, and the deeper I dig into at least the Apple ruling, the more confused I become. I have not yet read this decision, but unless there's something rather large that I'm missing, I'm left shaking my head.
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. A judge knows the law and manages their courtroom. Theatrics don't generally go over well - they go after facts.
Juries are ordinary people - you can say ordinary people who couldn't get themselves excused - and are easily swayed because everyone brings their own experiences, biases and other things into the picture. They watch TV shows like CSI and expect forensic evidence to b
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
There's something baffling about the courts finding that Apple, whose OS is not licensed to anyone else and whose hardware deliberately and explicitly makes other app stores impossible, is not violating federal antitrust law while Google, whose OS is freely licensed to other hardware vendors and whose hardware explicitly allows side-loading of other app stores, somehow is in violation.
Well considering the court cases, you've already stated the reason. Google's OS is freely licensed and with it comes some expectation about what that "free" means. You cannot put a sign out saying "free hamburger" and then hand people a bill for the plate that the hamburger was served on. That's deceit. You cannot indicate that you've built an all-purpose tool for the public and then slide stuff into it to make everyone else's stuff look bad and then be like "OH! Your stuff running crappy? Oh my, I guess you ought to sign up with our Google stuff instead of that Samsung stuff." You're basically making it look like it is Samsungs fault which is an abuse of position.
Apple's thing. Well they're the only one that can do it. There's no hush-hush about what Apple is after.
Paying someone for exclusivity is generally not an antitrust violation, except when that exclusivity prevents a competing store from even being able to exist
It's a bit deeper than that, but that's generally correct. Exclusive agreements are protected by Congress. However, exclusive agreements cannot be enforced by modifying a tool generally accepted by the public as utility. I get what you're focusing on, which is the end product, but the bigger focus here is the means by which that's done. There's nothing wrong with indicating "Google has partnered with Samsung to blah blah blah..." but when there's a partnership that basically makes a tool that everyone uses crap except for those who agreed to the partnership AND that's never disclosed to those who consider it utility. It's that deceitfulness that's the issue. The end result notwithstanding.
Basically, these cases upended decades of antitrust laws in ways that seem, at least on the surface, nonsensical
Because it's not consumer facing aspect that's being gauged in a lot of these. It's how the company acted and if they were clear and forthright in their goals to the public and the industry. Apple makes no secret about their unwillingness to cooperate with others, they explicitly indicate "we don't interoperate with others". You walk into Apple products knowing full well what you are walking into. That's on the up and up. Google has attempted to indicate "Oh Android runs on everything" and at the same time quietly hobbles anyone who doesn't do a backroom deal with them. That's lying.
And I have an Apple iPhone now and I hate the fucking thing. I really dislike how stupid they've tightly integrated into all their shit and how hostile they are with working with other device types. But when I had to bring my Samsung in for water damage and the iPhone 12 mini was all I could trade a waterlogged phone for, I knew what I was getting into. I knew that it was going to be hostile to everything I owned. That in essence is the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something baffling about the courts finding that Apple, whose OS is not licensed to anyone else and whose hardware deliberately and explicitly makes other app stores impossible, is not violating federal antitrust law while Google, whose OS is freely licensed to other hardware vendors and whose hardware explicitly allows side-loading of other app stores, somehow is in violation.
Well considering the court cases, you've already stated the reason. Google's OS is freely licensed and with it comes some expectation about what that "free" means.
Other articles I've read imply that Google gave other companies incentives in exchange for not building their own store, not that "free" came with strings attached. That isn't remotely the same thing. The only place I see phrases like "restricting... from providing any competition" is here. I'd be curious what the summary authors meant by that, and whether they know about something that I haven't seen yet.
And unfortunately, the PDF link above is to the jury instructions, not to the decision, so we don't
Re: (Score:3)
If you read more about the Sherman Anti-trust Act, a company doesn't have to own an entire market to be a monopoly. And I think more importantly in the Google case (although I can't wait for anti-trust experts to weigh in), the fact that Google was making secret deals to kill any possible competition and their internal conversations were literally saying that, makes it hard to argue they weren't acting in an anti-competitive way.
There's something baffling about the courts finding that Apple, whose OS is not licensed to anyone else and whose hardware deliberately and explicitly makes other app stores impossible, is not violating federal antitrust law while Google, whose OS is freely licensed to other hardware vendors and whose hardware explicitly allows side-loading of other app stores, somehow is in violation.
This, and I'm not arguing that Google wasn't engaged in anti-competitive activities, quite the contrary they, by all reports were and should be smacked down for it.
But the law seems to be applied so inconsistently, with Apple getting away with murder in comparison to Google's sweetheart deals, even Epic is trying the same thing but just aren't being successful. It all seems to come down to how sympathetic the judge is.
Re: Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Informative)
There's something baffling about the courts finding that Apple, whose OS is not licensed to anyone else and whose hardware deliberately and explicitly makes other app stores impossible, is not violating federal antitrust law while Google, whose OS is freely licensed to other hardware vendors and whose hardware explicitly allows side-loading of other app stores, somehow is in violation.
No there's not because the ruling against Google had nothing to do with whether or not an alternative store can be loaded. Here's the thing. You're allowed to be a monopoly. You're allowed to control your own product. What you're not allowed to do is "monopolize" i.e. abuse your market power.
In all the rulings so far across the world Apple has been found in the clear because they produce an iPhone and load a specific app store on it. In all the rulings across the world so far Google has been found in violation because they *don't* produce a Samsung Galaxy or an LG, or an Oppo, or whatever other 3rd party makes a phone, yet they write contracts with these companies enforcing a requirement for their app store to be on it.
Apple restricts only the capability of their own devices. - Legal
Google restricts 3rd party commerce contractually to maintain market dominance. - Not Legal.
Your issue is a fundamental lack of understanding of what each company is in trouble for. Neither is in trouble because their app store is popular, it's entirely what they do with it and more importantly *who* they do it to that is at issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the source of the decision: a judge who understands and applies the law, or a jury of 8 imbeciles that couldn't (or didn't want to) get out of jury duty.
The kicker: both decisions are wrong, so neither situation can be pointed to as being the better one.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read more about the Sherman Anti-trust Act, a company doesn't have to own an entire market to be a monopoly.
If you read more about the Sherman Anti-trust Act you'll find it has nothing to do with being a monopoly. The actual anti-trust law is about attempting to monopolize (the verb, not the noun) commerce, i.e. abusing your market power to remain dominant. You don't need to be a monopoly to fall afoul of the law, and simply being a monopoly isn't illegal either.
Re:Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Google want found to be a monopoly. Monopolies aren't illegal. They were found to violate antitrust law with contacts they made with 3rd parties. A users ability to install an alternate store is not relevant in these cases.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to root your phone to allow F-Droid to do security updates for you.
Google won't permit them the permission needed. Which cuts to the heart of the matter.
Re:Samsung App Store, Amazon App Store (Score:4, Informative)
You have to root your phone to allow F-Droid to do security updates for you.
Google won't permit them the permission needed. Which cuts to the heart of the matter.
Can you elaborate? F-droid absolutely can push updates (security or otherwise) to apps that were installed by F-droid, and the app can, and does, update itself.
I'm not sure what sort of "security updates" you're referring to, or what permission would be required for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Others have responded to your points about the definition of a monopoly and anti-trust law.
You protest that "other app stores are available on Android."
Maybe so, but only for certain segments of the Android marketplace. I have a Moto phone. I can't use the Samsung app store, or the Amazon app store, neither of those will work on my phone, even if I wanted them. So those aren't really "choices" for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Others have responded to your points about the definition of a monopoly and anti-trust law.
You protest that "other app stores are available on Android."
Maybe so, but only for certain segments of the Android marketplace. I have a Moto phone. I can't use the Samsung app store, or the Amazon app store, neither of those will work on my phone, even if I wanted them. So those aren't really "choices" for me.
Ah, but that is entirely Samsung's choice and Amazon's choice. They would rather require you to buy hardware to gain access to their store than offer that app store freely for you to run on their competitors' devices. Blaming Google for that is nonsensical. The only way I can think of that Google could have prevented them from doing things that way would have been to mandate that all Android devices have the Play store, and that all other app stores be distributed through the Play store, and then they'd
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Samsung and Amazon have chosen to restrict their app stores. Epic, on the other hand, doesn't have the option to place their app store on Samsung, Apple, Moto, or any other devices.
Re: (Score:2)
And? How exactly is that Googles fault? Last I checked Android is open source, and anyone can take it and make it their own.
Errr you haven't been paying attention. This is precisely Google's fault. They signed contracts with 3rd party companies saying that if those companies want to include the Play Store (basically a requirement for a functional Android phone) that these companies will have to adhere to certain requirements. This included not included 3rd party app stores other than from the two companies involved by default, and not including 3rd party search engines by default.
These contracts are a textbook definition of an a
Re: (Score:3)
How can Google's store be found to be a monopoly
Because the question wasn't was Google a monopoly. Google abused it's position which is also under federal antitrust laws.
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony
15 USC 2. As that language is broad one applies the further standard of "Rule of Reason" 221 US 1 (1910)
companies constitute a combination in restraint of interstate commerce and that they have attempted to monopolize. . .
The "Rule of Reason" establishes that: One, there are Congressionally promulgated means by which a company may reduce competition that only in the instance of being a single provider would not fall under abuses practices. Two, that outside those things, the intent of the actions of
Re: Take the L, appLe (Score:2)
Apple won its case. This is about Epic and Google. What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:1)
Apple won its case.
Which is fucking bizarre, because of the two major mobile platforms, Apple's is far more locked down.
Re: Take the L, appLe (Score:1)
Apple's case was decided by a judge, Google's case was decided by a jury.
Re: (Score:1)
Ya that has to be the reason.
BTW, how does the US Justice system decide if a case will go to a jury or decided by a judge ?
Re: (Score:2)
Defendant's choice. Unless it's an administrative court, which is it's own rat's nest.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Apple didn't win - at least not where it counts.
Apple had to change their App Store rules [wired.com] to allow third-party payment systems which meant that they no longer get an automatic cut of in-app purchases. Epic cares less about there being only one app store than they do about not having to share any of their sweet Fornite money.
Similarly, they care that Google's Play Store rules say that developers must use Google Pay for in-app purchases. It's always about the money.
Re: (Score:2)
The trial ran from May 3 to May 24, 2021. In a September 2021 ruling in the first part of the case, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts, but found against Apple on its anti-steering policies under the California Unfair Competition Law. Rogers prohibited Apple from stopping developers from informing users of other payment systems within apps. Epic appealed the ruling though the original ruling was upheld in 2023.
Judge Rogers also ruled against Epic, requiring them to pay Apple $3.6 million, 30% of the revenue that was withheld to Apple related to their attempts to bypass the App Store,[63] and further stated that Epic did violate its contractual terms as a developer with Apple in how they deployed the update to Fortnite in August 2020 that instigated events, such that Apple may block Epic in the future from providing apps to the App Store.[70] Rogers stated that Apple's single offense against California's law was not sufficiently severe to justify Epic's rulebreaking.[66]
And even from the article you cited:
Within 90 days, App Store developers will be able to circumvent the 30 percent commission by adding in-app buttons or links to their own websites with their own payment systems. “Developers aren’t going to get all of that—they’re not going to entirely circumvent that 30 percent,” says Ederer. “But that’s a big win for developers.” He theorizes that any more cash surplus could act as a developer incentive to help ship more products or maintain them for longer, even if some users choose to take the easy route and go through Apple’s in-app payment system.
It's not a meaningful win--Apple still has all the in-app purchase power, they're just not allowed to stop devs from pointing us to their sites so we can pay directly. But then Apple can charge that money back later as a fee for using the platform.
I've yet to see even a single app direct me out to their website to pay that didn't before the case (apps for ebooks, for instance).
There's no real way in which Epic won that case. Epic still has to pay Apple their cut, and I do
Dangerous argument for Epic? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely "relevant market" doesn't mean the game they own....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but a single game, no matter how big it is, seems much too small to regulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument relies on the obviously incorrect assumption that this policy should apply to every piece of software ever, drawing an equals sign between a video game and a fucking operating system.
No reasonable person would agree with that assumption. Games are an application, operating systems are a hardware and software management layer allowing applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Android is an entire OS. No matter how big one game is, it's a few orders of magnitude smaller than that.
Is the Apple AppStore next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Is the Apple AppStore next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Epic already lost its suit against Apple months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert, but doesn't it seem like the legal results are backwards (assuming different results for the cases are legitimate at all)?
Unless I'm mistaken, it is officially allowed and fairly straightforward for a user to install anything on Android without going through Google, but IOS only allows that if you (as a user) sign up as a developer (including a fee, I think). Doesn't that mean Apple is a worse/stronger monopoly than Google?
Re: (Score:3)
You're not mistaken about anything other than what the car or rulings are about. Antitrust behaviour doesn't care if an alternative is possible, it consists market per and how that power is used. Google's issue here is they have different deals with this potatoes too bolster their store and prevent competition.
If you create your phone with your app store that's okay.
If you make a deal with other people to force your app store through with specific exclusions or even financial incentives to reduce competitio
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're placing too much faith in the objectivity of the average jury. Apple obviously just made a more compelling case as to why it's perfectly fine that they lock you out of your own hardware. Hell, every time there's an article about Apple possibly being forced to dial back some of their anti-competitive practices, Apple fanboys start coming out of the woodwork to explain how they actually prefer being locked in Apple's garden.
If you've got enough kool aid drinkers on the jury, Apple can get away
Re: (Score:2)
Apple fanboys start coming out of the woodwork to explain how they actually prefer being locked in Apple's garden.
This is the part I don't understand. You acknowledge that a large number of Apple customers prefer this model, but for some reason because they're "fanboys" they shouldn't be able to purchase the devices they want. No, Android customer preferences should shape what Apple users are able to buy. How does that make sense?
I think Harley Davidson motorcycles are stupid as hell and I can't wrap my head around why someone would want one, but that doesn't mean I think the government should mandate that all motorcyc
Re: Is the Apple AppStore next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple fanboys start coming out of the woodwork to explain how they actually prefer being locked in Apple's garden.
This is the part I don't understand. You acknowledge that a large number of Apple customers prefer this model,
No, a small number of vocal Apple customers prefer this model. A decent number of Apple customers disagree, and probably 95% haven't even thought about it one way or the other.
The purpose of antitrust law is to protect customers from price inflation and other abuses arising out of one company having too much market power. Apple's App Store model causes price inflation because of the way it ties one thing (in-app purchase payment systems) to multiple other things (purchases of games on their store and purchases of hardware). That makes its policies almost per se illegal restraint of trade. The lack of availability of alternative app stores is pretty much the final nail in that coffin.
And the bulk of the customers who prefer this model do so because they are blindly trusting Apple's claims that things would be way worse if they weren't the sole arbiter of what can run on the platform. The reality is that the sky wouldn't fall if they were forced to open up the platform, and users would quickly see that, after which almost nobody would defend their previous practices anymore other than perhaps people who have a lot of Apple stock and not much humanity.
but for some reason because they're "fanboys" they shouldn't be able to purchase the devices they want.
This does not follow. Nobody is preventing them from purchasing the devices that they want. They can keep their phones locked to "Apple only" mode. What they don't have is the right to force everyone else to do so.
No, Android customer preferences should shape what Apple users are able to buy. How does that make sense?
You're wrongly assuming that the people complaining about Apple's policies are all Android users. I've been an iPhone user since the first model. I've also felt that both their App Store in-app purchasing rules and their lack of side-loading were harmful to consumers since the very first day of the App Store. Actually, to be pedantic, now that I think about it, I've thought that the lack of side-loading was anti-consumer since about a year *before* the App Store existed. :-)
What you're saying is that your preferences should be mandated, thus preventing anyone else from using hardware that they purchased in the manner of their choosing. How does that make any sense?
Re: (Score:3)
Those who disagree don't have to be Apple customers, there are plenty of other options out there.
If they are still Apple customers despite disagreeing with their model, then it means that they disagree with some aspects of the other options more.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are still Apple customers despite disagreeing with their model, then it means that they disagree with some aspects of the other options more.
Disagree is way too strong a term. I prefer the way iOS works, for the most part, though there are aspects of Android that are better. I dislike the "everything must come from our store" rules, but not enough to switch operating systems over it. After all, it's just a phone, so the availability of apps isn't really that important to me compared with being able to quickly do whatever I need to do. I use my Mac way more than I use my phone, and that is at least in part because the lack of an App Store loc
Re: (Score:2)
Did you hit your head recently by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the part I don't understand. You acknowledge that a large number of Apple customers prefer this model, but for some reason because they're "fanboys" they shouldn't be able to purchase the devices they want.
The part you're missing is that the smartphone market is a duopoly and letting Apple have their locked down ecosystem leaves Google as the sole alternative, effectively granting Google a monopoly over the slightly-less-locked-down mobile OS market. That's not really an ideal situation. The fact that some of Apple's customer base prefers it this way still doesn't make it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple obviously just made a more compelling case as to why it's perfectly fine that they lock you out of your own hardware.
Of course they did. There's nothing illegal about locking a user out of their hardware.
People have this fantasy about what anti-trust laws are about. They view their ideal world as full ownership and full freedom and anytime they don't get it they shout "antitrust". Unfortunately that's not how it works. Actual abuse of market power is a very specific thing. Apple didn't just win because they argued better to a specific jury, they've played out this arguments many times in many jurisdictions. It's not illeg
Re: Is the Apple AppStore next? (Score:2)
I'm not arguing the merits of the case, merely the end result. All I wanted to do was point out how this has no bearing on the Apple case since it was decided. I admit after the Apple case I was not expecting Google to lose, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's currently under appeal, and if you think Epic's lawyers aren't going to cherry-pick from this win in their arguments for that case, you're crazy.
Re: Is the Apple AppStore next? (Score:1)
Apparently, Google not only ditched "do not do evil" but also "do not hire bad lawyers" credo.
Re: (Score:1)
makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It make no sense: Google App store is found to be a monopoly when on Android there are a lot of alternate app stores and you can even sideload APKs, but at the same time Apple App Store is fount NOT to be a monopoly, when that is a real monopoly, with no 3rd party alternatives. Exactly the opposite. This judiciary system is either profoundly incompetent or totally corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
It make no sense: Google App store is found to be a monopoly
They weren't "found to be a monopoly". They were found to be abusing their dominant position to stifle competition.
A jury in San Francisco unanimously found (PDF) that Google violated California and federal antitrust laws through deals that stifled competition for its mobile app store.
Re: (Score:2)
So the punchline is that since competition is not possible, it hasn't been stifled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of market power is. The Play Store is loaded on every Android device along with contractual agreements with device makers that have been over time to be repeatedly found to be anti-competitive. The fact you as the user can load something else is irrelevant. On the other hand Apple isn't making contractual agreements with anyone, they are simply loading their store on their device.
I don't like it. It's a walled garden. It actively locks down the experience. But it is *not* in
Re: (Score:2)
A monopoly (*for normies), and that's always the c (Score:1)
Re: A monopoly (*for normies), and that's always t (Score:1)
However to measure a monopoly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: However to measure a monopoly? (Score:2)
Exclusive Game Shenanigans? (Score:1)
only until the best appeal overturn (Score:2)
four hours (Score:2)
It took the jury four hours only because they wanted to get the free sandwiches.
Ludicrous (Score:2)