If anything, they need to offer better deals to Spotify because Google runs their own competitor in YouTube music.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Play Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think that is that clear. That depends on whether you estimate that having YouTube Music hurts Spotify's ability to do business on the platform. For instance, whether not being able to purchase a subscription through the app is enough to say that YouTube Music has a competitive advantage.
Does Apple's free calendar app provide a limitation on making money on third party calendar apps - or does the existence of iOS provide the foundation for that company to deliver a third party calendar app in the first place? That is a matter of perspective. I find it interesting that it seems noone thinks a free, pre-installed app is anti-competitive, whereas a paid subscription supposedly is.
why did Google win when Apple lost?
Also, on Android you can side load, in Apple you can't.
Also, on Android you can side load, in Apple you can't.
Weird that the Google case essentially hinged on Epic's claim that Google was using their money to drive exclusivity on the Play Store, when Epic does the same thing with their own game store. This one will almost certainly be reversed on appeal, and Epic will continue to dissolve in the lake of Sweeney's hubris.
Good, good!
Google finally gets what they deserve... google offered Android with anti-competitive terms to establish a dominant market share with false promises.
For example it is also forbidden for licensed Android vendors to also sell:
Don't get me wrong... you can use an open Android ROM (Murena or Lineage for example) but the OEMs are not allowed to pre-load that (if they want to keep selling devices with google Android in parallel).
Only in the world of software distribution such terms would actually considered legally binding... everywhere else it would be considered "unfair business practices" in first place...
These special deals in the Play Store nicely add up on this pile of BS... don't be evil... they tried and failed.
I hope the EPIC lawsuit is only the tip of the iceberg for google... they had it coming...
Google finally gets what they deserve... google offered Android with anti-competitive terms to establish a dominant market share with false promises.
For example it is also forbidden for licensed Android vendors to also sell:
- Dual Boot devices
- Devices that run Android Apps in a virtualmachine, in particular google services
Don't get me wrong... you can use an open Android ROM (Murena or Lineage for example) but the OEMs are not allowed to pre-load that (if they want to keep selling devices with google Android in parallel).
Only in the world of software distribution such terms would actually considered legally binding... everywhere else it would be considered "unfair business practices" in first place...
These special deals in the Play Store nicely add up on this pile of BS... don't be evil... they tried and failed.
I hope the EPIC lawsuit is only the tip of the iceberg for google... they had it coming...
I get what you said. My point was that Apple is being more anticompetitive by preventing iOS app developers from even being able to do business with potential Apple (alternative iOS app store) competitors if they wanted to by restricting sideloading or alternative app stores on iOS. Android developers at least potentially still have the option to do so via sideloading or alternative app stores on Android.
As far as app stores are concerned, my point is not about requiring Apple to bundle competitor app stores in iOS for iPhones they sell but rather to allow those alternative app stores to be added later as an option either by third party retailers (e.g., AT&T, Best Buy, etc.) or at least (and preferably) end users.
I know that. Epic appealed. And now the Supreme Court, if it takes the case, will have to square the potentially internally inconsistent result, which is that an App Store ecosystem (Apple) that is arguably more restrictive than Google, has been found to not be an illegal monopoly, yet Google has been found to be a monopoly.Where have you been? Apple already won the same case against Epic!
Apple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules | TechCrunch
Apple won its antitrust-focused appeals court battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games over its App Store policies.techcrunch.com
How could the law have been applied equally to both companies and yet have such a divergent result? That is something that the justices will have to grapple with.
Because Apple did not (at least according to the courts) do the things that Google was convicted for. Read the verdict.
Because noone was convicted of having a monopoly - because having a monopoly is not inherently illegal. Anticompetitive conduct is. Google was found guilty in anticompetitive behaviour, Apple was not. Read the verdict.
Unless new evidence is found that Apple has been doing similarly shady stuff behind the scenes as Google (which is not unlikely but not proven in court), this verdict is highly unlikely to affect Apple.
Okay, so you get what I said, but your going to ignore it to make the same point that you've made a hundred times. Even though we have clear, new evidence that the courts disagree.
because the Jury decision wasn't just based on simply is the Playstore a monopoly, it was that it was uncovered that Google made secret deals with big time dev companies like Spotify to either not pay or pay a little percentage to basically keep their app on the Playstore. Also the decision was based that even devs who have their own apps or stores, nearly every popular app needs Google Services in some way or another, so while you may be able to have one game sideloaded on your phone when you launch it Google services gets used and basically Google can limit competition by suspending those privilege's. This is basically what happened to Epic Games when it was taken off the Playstore until it was later given back (the permissions).
Basically the Playstore/Google isn't as open/fair as everyone thought
you said emulators are illegal. you are wrong. quit trying to change the subject now.
One thing I fundamentally don't understand is why so many find Apple's App store policies anticompetitive.
It's their sandbox, why can'y they set the rules for whoever wants to play in it?
Beyond that, the iPhone is far from being in a monopoly position, except that they are the only source for their own product (duh).... so?
It's their sandbox, why can'y they set the rules for whoever wants to play in it?
Beyond that, the iPhone is far from being in a monopoly position, except that they are the only source for their own product (duh).... so?
Had to fangirl for a moment here
It truly was an OS that was ahead of its time. The interface was so beautiful and unique and the concept of tiles providing information.
Unfortunately with Windows Phone 7, 8 and 8.1 the OS itself was fine (even with some shortcomings) but so much was wrong.
Windows Phone 7 devices could NOT be upgraded to Windows Phone 8. So if you brought a phone less than a year before Windows Phone 8 release, that phone literally became obsolete. They tried to make people happy with a Spiritual Windows phone 7.8 update which brought aesthetics from 8 to 7 devices but in the end, it was a slap into =the face of early adopters. We didnt have Multi tasking for 3rd party apps in 2011 lol. We didnt have Copy and paste until well into the OS release.
THen windows phone 8 came out and initially (like Windows 8) was a buggy roll out. Keep in mind this is now the second Windows Mobile reboot (8 is a reboot of 7, 7 is a reboot of WIndows mobile 6). Windows Phone OEMs were releasing phones but not supporting them. Similar to Android, you could buy a windows phone and it almost never would get updated.
Windows Phone 8.1 was for the most part very good but we still had Appgate and suffered from a lack of apps to the point developers tried to make 3rd party apps for Insta, Snapchat, Tinder, and more. We did not even have a proper Youtube app from google. Even when Apaps were made they were intentionally made low quality and lacking features that IOS and Android app just because. We did have some of the best hardware because Nokia and Microsoft partnered up and it brought the best Windows Phones and arguably the highest marketshare for Windows phone. Unfortunately, OEMs saw that Microsoft was giving Preferential treatment to Nokia (we had a better camera app for example than the standard WP camera) and essentially gave up.
Windows 10 mobile came and....it was a complete Mess. Microsoft trying to both create a unified OS (similar to Apple) and also fix the hate for Windows 8, literally destroyed all the good that Windows Phone 8 did. You want to say Apple releases buggy software? Nope.....Microsoft literally was releasing updates that caused phones to freeze, reboot, and the core apps were terrible because they not only remove functionality we were used to in Windows phone 7/8 but it also was not stable. Things like Cortana and Continuum (which Apple more or less does now) were half-baked Microsoft brought Nokia which would have been great but then they released extremely pathetic flagships in the Lumia 950 and 950 XL.
Once again, ths is the 3rd reboot of Windows mobile in less than a decade and yet again Many Windows Phone 8 devices were not able to upgrade to Windows 10 mobile. Microsoft eventually gave up on windows mobile because global marketshare literally fell to under 0.5 percent.
Things it didd better than Android(and Ios) at the the time
- The hub (mainly on windows phone 7) with the Social Media and Email integration. Actually similar to beeper, the OS had a built-in hub for People(contacts) that made it easy to keep up with your friends and family on social media.
- Metro Apps were far more appealing visually than their Android and IOS counterparts.
- Many of the lockscreen things you see on Android and IOS actually started with Windows phone(and before that Webos)
- Microsoft integration (if you were heavy into Microsoft world, it was perfect)
- Lumia hardware was way better than Any android or iPhone of the time.
- Live titles > Widgets
- Here maps from Nokia were better for offline use than Google maps
Metro design is what inspired the flatter and colorful design you see today in IOS and in Material.
It truly was ahead of its time and I do miss it but i dont miss the stress and frustrations of Microsoft kind of dicking us around and I will say I am happy in the Apple camp knowing that Apple is all in. Microsoft had so many things it was trying to do it at once (like Android) yet unlike Android, Google had the advantage that it can rely on its OEMs to push for them whereas Microsoft could not and in the end it did nothing truly well but waste so much potential.
I think thats whY i also dont use Microsoft products as much anymore as i am still bitter.
He has a point. If you paid 30% copererate tax before paying income tax you would be pissed too.
The software itself isn’t. But you can’t legally use ANY ROMs without explicit permission from the copyright owner. So what good are emulators that don’t do anything? Hence my statement.
“He has a point” is not proof. Where are the financial breakdowns that show 30% is too much? Ever try putting something at a physical store? Ever worked on an Amazon listing? Those are even MORE than 30% in some cases.
Apple lost their lawsuit. The district court judge ruled that the anti-steering restrictions are anticompetitive and violated California law and required Apple to offer third party payment options. The appeals court agreed and temporarily paused part of that ruling to allow for appeal to the Supreme Court.
After all the legal process is done (even if Apple is not ruled a monopoly), Fortnite will be back on App Store (if Epic Games chooses to) and with its own payment system! That's the exact violation for which Apple removed them in the first place! The whole point was about how much Apple can charge app purchases and the courts basically said 0% if the developers choose so.
And this point has already been addressed numerous times both here and elsewhere. What you think or feel on the matter is totally out of sync with how US antitrust law does work.
In summary, it’s not a crime to be a monopoly, what more when Apple has been 100% upfront about this and has been consistent with the enforcement of their rules since day 1.
It’s hard to make a case that Apple’s walled garden is bad especially when in the US, close to 60% of people bought an iPhone knowing fully well the limitations of the platform. Heck, I can argue that for them, maybe the walled garden was specifically viewed as a benefit because it promised them better protection.
This sort of things are rarely ever about absolute right or wrong, but about how different people weigh different trade offs differently. Who are you to say that one person’s right to sideload apps ought to be given more weight than another user’s right to freedom from scams, malware and piracy?
For example, in my country, there was a wave of scams going around where android users were tricked into downloading malware via fake QR codes and Facebook ads. The absence of sideloading on iOS specifically protected iPhone users from this particular scam.
Which is also why I have always found the whole “you don’t have to sideload if you don’t want to” argument extremely disingenuous, because it effectively creates a new problem while putting the onus of managing it squarely on the people who chose an iPhone specifically so they didn’t have to deal with said problem in the first place.
- Apple removed Fortnite for adding its own payment option. The courts said Apple must allow apps to do that. It was an unequivocal and devastating loss for Apple.
- The courts said Apple violated California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits far more behavior than the federal antitrust laws. It doesn't matter if Apple is a monopoly or not. California courts have interpreted UCL rather broadly and the Supreme Court is unlikely to disturb that interpretation. Apple will lose their appeal.
If it is a better product you should not have to outlaw the competition. Now go after Walmart they have poor lawyers everywhwere that needs the money. Walmart a monopoly? No wait,and now higher prices?
What a mess. Less government and the money will sort it self out.
What a mess. Less government and the money will sort it self out.
Apple did not lose their lawsuit lol.
It is not a walled garden though. No matter how much people on MR want to make it out to be
Because a walled garden implies I can not leave easily...As we have seen with many iphone to Androdi defectors, they leave just fine.
IPhone has the marketshare it has not because people buy into limitations (we dont) so much as the iPhone was literally one carrier exclusive in 2007 for like 4 years or so. It built a sense of mystery and elitism. It became a social icon for US people and once it came to the other 3 carrier now EVERYONE could get it.
On the flipside, Android was always seen as cheap, laggy, and a knock off/poor mans iPhone. It didnt help that the early Androids pathetically copied Apple products (Points to the Galaxy line). Similar to how T-mobile was seen as cheap and a knock-off carrier. Android has improved a bit and T-mobile certainly has but they still have that reputation of being inferior to iPhone and other carriers.
I doubt most people think of iOS like a Walled Garden except Androdi fanboys.
Exactly. Considering how sophisticated scammers are these days, it is only opening up potential threats to IOS users and thus threatening the reputation of apple.
THANK YOU!
i am not sure why any normal consumer would want Governments having this much control. Let the consumer choose
This whole epic thing to me is like a school yard bully ball game. You are bigger and I want to play with the ball you play with and on your court. If you don't I will sue you for it and make you allow me to play with you. I don't like your rules APPLE now here comes my lawyers. So wrong that a company can not do their own thing without others trying to tear it down for a piece of the money/pie. Go play somewhere else I say if you don't like our rules put forth on the game play. I Say it again Hope Elon rubs off on APPLE.