Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.

  • candle_lighter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn’t even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.

    Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store.

        Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html

        It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.

        • bigFab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.

          • yamanii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.

    Unlike Apple, Google allows people to download apps onto phones running its Android operating system without going through its official app store, but the company strikes deals with phone manufacturers to favor Google’s official app store.

    So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.

    Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??

    The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.

    • Killer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?

    Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)

    Sorry if it’s a stupid question.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android

    This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic Games Launcher free game downloader for games I forget I own. I’m very unlikely to start using Epic’s services over Google’s.

    I’d have taken the money and run

    • nul9o9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah ok that’s def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.

        Hadn’t considered it.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d have taken the money and run

      That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.

      Sometimes it’s okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it’s usually worth the try.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    'It’s a win for everyone" except if Google (and Apple) were to start playing “fair”: no more restriction on apps, but they charge full price for the service of hosting and providing a searchable store to something million users. That way, only big business that can pay for that kind of service will be able to use each platform’s “main” store, and every (big business owner) will be happy.

    There’s no free meal in there. Not for the majority of users, at least.

  • nixcamic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?

  • adrian rodriguez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    oh no google!! it’s not illegal because first of all, epic games dislikes linux because they don’t code anything for it, second, google is open source. the jury was very biased, that’s very bad