I hate Google as much as anybody else, but that Google has been ordered to open up when they already allow side loading, and Apple is apparently all good, is all you need to know this whole system is a joke.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
348 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59091 readers
4728 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Google is big enough to be considered a monopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Play Store is technically a separate service / business which enjoys unfair advantage of being installed by default. I think this approach might be good because it’s better for user experience (unlike EU web browser thing for example) and has a good shot at postiviely affecting power balance between app developers and platform owner.
I’m curious how this will play out. Apple should be next obviously.
Apple was first. And the courts ruled it no problem.
I meant "next big corpo beaten into submission by regulators". I don't think Epic gave up on them yet.
I wouldn't say Google has been "beaten into submission". They still interweave their crap services into every Android phone with no ability to remove or disable them, couple their apps with an intrusive, privacy violating, system degrading backend with special rules for its own apps versus everybody else... even force the default system web browser to be an unremovable Chrome installation, and not even a peep from regulators that any of this might be anti-competitive.
No company has been properly beaten into submission since Ma Bell. Even the big Microsoft browser decision in the 90s turned out to be a joke - they're right back to doing the same thing with impunity.
Even if things go well it will be one thing at a time probably. This news doesn’t sound big because Google is so big but for businesses dependent on Google infrastructure this is a major win, no?
My perspective might be skewed since I live in EU and we mostly won right to our data and privacy.
I appreciate you guys fighting the good fight.
At least SOMEONE'S on it.
It's because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.
You can't have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed, or notifications won't work.
The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.
Apple doesn't do this. Yes, Apple's system is more locked down than Google's (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is. Apple has not forced Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, Sony, etc to do anything. They are only doing things of their own accord, on their own devices.
What Apple is doing is the same as what the games consoles do. You buy a Sony console, it has Sony software, Sony's storefront, Sony-sanctioned games. It's an ecosystem they're putting on their own product, as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google's ecosystem, because Google knows they have no realistic alternative. That's why one is abuse of market dominance and the other isn't.
This is the clearest and most sensible explanation of the situation, but I'm still not sure what's meant by "opening the app store". The reality is apps can be sideloaded and distributed freely on Android, even unrooted. Sure, Google requires OEMs to push Google services and tracking, and that's evil and horrible and nasty, but do they actually force that onto app developers as well?
Perhaps they mean allowing android OEMs to ship with the play store without having to agree to all the other Google requirements.
Edit: Sorry! I misread your comment at first. Yeah, now that you say that, that makes the most sense.
But from the standpoint of anti-competitivity and Android vs iOS with Apple...
One's behavior is denying access to their app store without agreeing to a set of device restrictions, but everything on the app store is available without the app store at developer discretion.
The other is an app store which MUST be installed, and is in fact the ONLY way to get software for the device.
One is CLEARLY more anti-competitive than the other, and yet the one that's LESS problematic is the one that gets court action. It's a joke.
You can't have a successful Android device without the Play store
And you can't have a device with the Apple Store at all.
Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is.
You can't claim that Google is more anti-competitive because they try to control how others use their OS when Apple doesn't even let anyone else do that, and they still maintain a near-majority market-share in the US.
it has Sony software, Sony's storefront, Sony-sanctioned games...as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google's ecosystem
Damn Google, and their anti-competitive letting-competitors-use-their-software!
There’s that nuance again. Seems to not be very popular around here. Good point though. Well said.
Apple isn't on third party hardware.
They aren't controlling access to software on other manufacturers devices like Google is.
That's not actually true though.
Android is open source and many devices, mostly Chinese products, launch with custom Android builds completely free of Google services. This is not a Google constraint - manufacturers CHOOSE to use Android builds that use Google's services. Creating your own build simply stops you from integrating Google's services into the OS, which is actually a PLUS if you ask me.
Even if they WERE requiring it, that would have nothing to do with end user store front installation, which is already something you can do, as shown by the 2 non-Google app stores I have installed on my phone.
Again... I'm not defending Google as some kind of good company here. I'm simply stating there is no way to make an anti-competitivity argument against Google in mobile that doesn't apply at least as much to Apple. This is a nonsensical double-standard.
Because of their market dominance. That's what antitrust laws are about.
The fact that it's not just their own hardware completely changes the legal arguments in play.
So, Google allows other OEMs to use their OS and tries to control how it's used = anti-competitive.
Apple doesn't let anyone else use their OS = totally fine?
Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers' rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They're using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers' rules on their hardware is anticompetitive.
You're dictating the ToU of your software. ~~They have zero control over others' hardware.~~
No one is arguing that Google isn't anti-competitive, just that Apple is also anti-competitive, in a similar but even worse manner because its not even available to others...
That's incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That's the monopoly they're abusing, and that's what Epic is suing for.
What are the hardware requirements?
One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google's arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.
This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That's textbook anticompetitive.
It's not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.
I honestly don't understand anything you said. There's a refresh rate requirement for Android? And the refresh rate requirement made it convoluted for people to enable the Play Store?
The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There's a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That's not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.
There's a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Is there? I've seen lots of Android e-readers that are way less. Maybe just because they're Chinese and don't give a shit. Presumably that requirement is to ensure a positive experience for Android users. Android is obviously not intended to be used for e-readers.
Regardless, a limitation of your OS is absolutely not in any way more anti-competitive than not distributing an OS at all. I feel like this is pretty straightforward...
You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It's why they're so niche and only made by Chinese companies.
It's not in any way a limitation of the OS. It's a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.
And again, your core concept isn't just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that "openness" to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your "partners" using that product, especially when you're also one of them. That's anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being "open" while completely dictating the entire market.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Google has also made unwelcome moves recently indicating they might crack down on sodeloaded app stores. So I'm glad this ruling happened.
good. now do apple, microsoft, amazon, meta....
First Apple then Google. On Android you can at least side-load properly
Do PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo next.
Does this mean Aurorastore will be useful again?
when did it stop being useful?
A couple years ago, I used Aurora to install paid games on my Shield TV. Games that Google Play doesn't normally allow on the Shield (like the PS2 era GTA games). Well Google changed something, and it's no longer possible to download and install purchased apps or games through Aurora, even if you log into your Google account. This sucks, because I formatted my Shield TV expecting be able to reinstall these games, but it doesn't work anymore.
Yeah, Aurora is still good, but Google has been crippling it.
Is it the pro or the tube shield the tube is 32 bit only and most apps and games have moved to 64 bit only so the pro would be needed but I can still install paid apps on aurora on my phone just fine.
Aurora stores GitHub page states under the Limitation section that it is not able to install, or update paid apps.
Provides only base minimum features Can not download or update paid apps.
Odd I used it to install GTA: SA definitive edition purchased on the play store website then installed and updated via Aurora still works just updated it recently too.
It might be the kind of thing that works sometimes in some situations, but isn't officially supported.
Either way, it used to work for my ShieldTV Pro, but it doesn't work anymore. Doesn't matter how many devices I try to spoof, or how many times I reinstall the app, or how many times I re-login, etc.
Makes me really sad that I formatted the Shield TV. Oh well.
OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
view more: next ›