Technology

59217 readers

3206 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

[email protected]

1574

Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight (www.theverge.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

258 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The thing here is that you don't have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don't even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I'm sure Huawei isn't using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while "designed to keep apps down", is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn't offered that deal they're still free to make deals with other app stores.

Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you're unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple's billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.

I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I'm not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they've specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn't and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Google made back room deals with other development firms to help suppress the use of other app stores.

That's the issue here. The collusion aspect.

It's very different than Apple.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

* Allegedly.

What exactly is evidence that Google has suppressed other stores, and in what manner ? If you consider say, Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo etc - all have their own stores in parallel to the Play Store. And on all/other phones, you're free sideload any third-party app store.

Taking my Samsung phone as an example, I don't see the Play Store being promoted any more prominently than the Galaxy Store, nor do I see any blockers for using the Galaxy Store. I believe this is the same for other OEMs as well who bundle their own stores.

So tell me, where exactly is the suppression here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

While I agree, it seems like antitrust lawsuits gain a lot more ground if the defendant was paying people to switch from competitors which is what got Google here.