Judge tells Google: Play Store shakeup coming; punishment for running a monopoly

https://apnews.com/article/google-play-store-android-apps-antitrust-monopoly-240b2493110660684198822c57e22a60

by solardev • 2 years ago

44 51 2 years ago

derbOac• 2 years ago

I haven't been following this as closely as I maybe should have, but I'm a bit confused why Google's app store would be broken up as a monopoly but Apple's wouldn't, especially when Android allows sideloading?

nine_zeros• 2 years ago

Apple would be too - once the precedent is set with Google. It just so happens that the Google case made its way to the judge first in time.

mvdtnz4• 2 years ago

The court already ruled in favour of Apple, unfortunately.

dns_snek• 2 years ago

They should both be broken up eventually but I can only imagine they're being treated as completely separate cases so they're at different stages of the process.

PaulWaldman• 2 years ago

Not only sideloading, but there are actual Play Store alternativities already available for Android.

jp1919192• 2 years ago

Play store also tries to, very annoyingly, update apps that weren't installed from play store

gjsman-10003• 2 years ago

Simple.

Apple never allowed side loading, from the beginning, even when they had 0.0% market share. This means it’s basically impossible to show that they have illegally acted to maintain a monopoly - when they didn’t change anything. Having a monopoly is not illegal - changing things to keep a monopoly, is.

This came up during Apple vs Epic. Did Apple change the rate to 50% when they had a monopoly? No. Did Apple retroactively ban a major app category? No. Did Apple add various fees and fines that weren’t there from the beginning? No. Did Apple force IAP, when this wasn’t initially required? No.

Android, on the other hand, had a time before the Play Store and before the heavier restrictions on sideloading…

throwaway484763• 2 years ago

Never allowed without jailbreaking. My iOS 3 device still has Cydia.

mvdtnz4• 2 years ago

No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up?

The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.

dagmx6• 2 years ago

Honestly at the time of writing, only gjsman-1000 has given you the correct answer if somewhat incomplete. Everyone else is just telling you what they think should happen or putting it up to the difference in courts, while ignoring the evidence that Epic provided in the case.

The issue is not monopoly and this is where people get hung up. It’s about anticompetitive behaviour enabled by a monopoly (or any level of market dominance)

Google was found to be anticompetitive because even though they allow other stores and side loading, they were pushing OEMs to exclude other stores and making sweetheart deals to prevent apps going to other stores.

Hence they were using their market position to harm their competing stores.

Link to the findings https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...

Apple has no competitor in the App Store for its platform outside of the EU, and therefore can’t be found anticompetitive on the same grounds that Google was.

They maybe found anticompetitive if they used their store to harm competition at the application level but that hasn’t been proven yet either. The closest has been in the EU (and to a lesser degree CA) where they were found in violation of anti-steering but those are distinct.

tantalor• 2 years ago

Apple has no competitor in the App Store

iOS and Android appstores are not distinct markets. They compete for the same users (mobile phone users).

solardev6• 2 years ago

Man, that's one tortured legal philosophy... so it's more anticompetitive to allow alternatives and use incentives to deter them, than to forbid them outright? Crazy world we live in.

matwood3• 2 years ago

Not sure why you've been downvoted since what you state was a key reason Google lost. They allow side-loading then took actions to prevent other stores from being side loaded.

The judge in the Apple case also agreed with positioning iOS as part of the larger gaming market where Apple is acting just like game consoles. The judge even said the 30% was fair relative to the market. The anti-steering was a minor finding against Apple.

I think the biggest risk for monopolistic behavior Apple has is with interop. It's one of the reasons I believe they have embraced RCS.

solardev6• 2 years ago

If memory serves, it was different judges in different courts. Google just got unlucky or Apple had better lawyers.

A lot of our justice system isn't really deterministic, and judge shopping is totally a thing :( It's unfair, and I wish we had a better system than that.

Here's one article... https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...

mvdtnz4• 2 years ago

Different judges, same court.

kyriakos• 2 years ago

not very familiar with US legal system but can't Google's case be used as precedent for Apple?

lupusreal• 2 years ago

The administrative class in America use Apple and sneer at Android.

redwall_hp• 2 years ago

Because a jury in this particular case just determined that. Lawsuits are decided individually, and "but someone else did crime too" isn't a factor.

Apple should have antitrust action taken as well, and hopefully will in time. They sure are in for a rude awakening in Europe with their malicious noncompliance to EU laws...

SkyPuncher• 2 years ago

Likely because of the other markets they operate in.

Apple isn’t both the world largest search engine and one of the largest digital markets.

SllX4• 2 years ago

Apple has not been ruled a monopoly in any capacity. Google has.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 2 years ago

How does the market share for Google's "app store" compare with the market share for Apple's "app store".

stale2002• 2 years ago

Oh hey, will you look at that.

In what should be a surprise to nobody, the courts do seem to eventually be coming around on this whole app store duopoly issue.

Remember, Apple + Google doesn't need to win a legal battle a single time. Instead, they need to win their legal battles every time. Else their duopoly will slowly get chipped away by rulings like this.

Sure, this one only effects Google. But perhaps the precedent could be used for future lawsuits. And if that doesn't work, well there is always the option of writing new laws.

What should be obvious to everyone though, is that the current app store situation is unsustainable and is likely to crack sooner rather than later.

throwaway484763• 2 years ago

They have to win every time in every jurisdiction including ones where they have not greased enough palms.

newbie578• 2 years ago

I do wonder how strong the Apple lobby is to be able to completely circumvent the App Store issue.

This feels like a Monty Python sketch if they are attacking Google for the Play Store while ignoring the elephant in the room which is Apple.

SllX4• 2 years ago

A Judge doesn’t get to call in an irrelevant party to a case simply to apply their judgements to them as well. Google lost their lawsuit on the strength of the evidence against them specifically.

josefritzishere• 2 years ago

This could actualy be really good for competition in the mobile app space. It should just also apply to Apple.

dzonga• 2 years ago

i'm no lawyer - but since law is based on precedence. if google gets penalized for play store - wouldn't that decision affect apple ?

even though apple was tried earlier though maybe on broad based terms ?

dmvdoug• 2 years ago

No, remedies are meant to be tailored to the specific wrongs found in a specific case. There are precedents for things like, “that amount of money is too much,” or “this equitable remedy requires these kinds of findings,” but there’s no 1:1 way to cite the remedies here for anything Apple-related, at least not as binding precedent (which is what it means that our law is based on precedent). That said, another judge might look at it as persuasive material that they accept the reasoning of and apply it elsewhere. It’ll be easier to get another judge to order a similar remedy if it has already been ordered in another case and has survived the gauntlet of appeals.

Judge tells Google: Play Store shakeup coming; punishment for running a monopoly

Related Stories