Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Ordered to Support Alternative App Stores and Payment Methods in Play Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
#2 would definitely a significantly worse experience for users. You’ll see many apps that don’t even allow Apple Pay and gift cards for IAP. They won’t even give users the chance to make them pay 30% to Apple.
Your only option to buy some subscriptions or IAP will be enter your credit card info, where inevitably some #%$& developers will store your credit card info in plain text, and will be leaked on the internet at some point.
The problem is that there are already (and have always been) alternative app stores for Android. For example, I was using the Amazon Android App Store on my first-generation Droid, back in 2009. Anybody can make an Android app store, and lots of companies have already done so. You need to jump through a few hoops to authorize installation of the app store's app if it wasn't bundled with your handset, but that's really not a big deal.
The weird thing here, and the reason I think the courts are massively abusing their authority is that this is no longer sufficient. They want to force Google to distribute other app stores' installers, and they want to force third-party app stores to distribute everything in Google's store. Neither of which makes any sense at all.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Not necessarily.
I often prefer to deal directly with a developer, cutting out the expensive middlemen.
Walmart isn‘t part of a duopoly for rice.
Chevy, BMW and Toyota aren‘t in a duopoly for cars.
Exactly - it‘s effectively a duopoly for app distribution to consumers.
Anf consumers „buy in“ and commit to one of these two stores with their hundreds of dollars hardware purchase.
Unlike for rice or cars.
I don‘t like or trust Google.
I don‘t like or trust Google.
They tried and failed. And the possibility of doing that (again but successfully) is merely theoretical - without an established ecosystem of third-party apps. Windows Phone was a good alternative - and someways their hardware. But it lacked apps y and that’s the main reason it failed in the marketplace.
Perfect - as long as developers aren’t forced into accepting that bargain.
Nationwide and Halifax don‘t nearly have the market power - and there isn‘t nearly the market concentration on their respective market - as between Apple and Google.
No
A sports stadium is not a monopoly. No sports stadium has 90% of the sports stadium market. Obvs
A dictionary might help you here.
Part one: where Google is required to produce installers. This is akin to Microsoft having to give all users a choice of web browsers. The courts ruled that there monopoly of pc operating systems did not entitle them to create a monopoly of web browsers.
Part two: I agree that it is odd for courts to tell any small provider what they can and cannot do.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
So if an App Store was your business model would you feel the same way? I think you make good points, but why don’t apple and google deserve a piece for setting up wildly successful business? Epic took on very little risk yet want 100% of the rewards that someone else took on. Your ideas make it sound like Apple and Google should just keep this going and allow epic to keep taking in bucks. Duopoly or not, if epic wants to sell via this channel they should have to pay something. Instead they are requiring others to host alternatives at their expense?
Nah this argument doesn’t hold water. You’re able to source parts for both vehicle brands from alternate sources (aftermarket, refurbished or junk yard parts) and this is not possible with current mobile platforms. Also a significant number of parts are universal. Again a scenario that’s becoming more and more unlikely with mobile devices as Apple quite literally will disable the camera if it detects a serial number from a non-approved source when it’s replaced by a third party service center.
Point is you can take your car to ANY shop to get it fixed in all but the most obscure situations. (BMW for example has a few Apple-esc things centered around their onboard computers and infotainment systems.)
I think a walled garden with a GATE for situations where you just gotta get in and out of the garden by some other means makes sense.
If it didn’t why do we even have gates for the fences around homes and other secure locations?
You never want to only have ONE way in and out of a location. There are way too many things that can go terribly wrong and you then you have far too few options to remedy them.
So in your opinion, being successful is cause for being punished? All the other companies had the ability to do the same thing apple and google did but since these 2 did everything right and rose above the competition, everyone else should get a participation trophy?
This is a similar story with Tesla. They take on all the risk and create a successful infrastructure(Charging network). Every(almost) Manufacturer wants to piggy back off of them instead of coming up with their own infrastructure thus the NACS standard. The only difference is that at least Tesla will be getting paid for allowing use of their platform/infrastructure.
While these companies have more than enough money, the idea of having to lay all of the ground work just for someone to take the easy way to the top is aggravating. Just imagine Coca Cola and Pepsi having to allow some start up beverage company to have a spot in all of their machines just because they're they have laid the ground work to be successful and that they are pretty much the only options you will find in most restaurants.
On top of that, if/when they are forced to open things, if things go bad a large amount of people start getting their data compromised, people aren't going to care about the details. They will just blame apple and google for "not being secure" and the headlines will be sensationalized "Apple losing 6 billion passwords" "Google involved in 10 million dollars of losses reported" or something of that nature.
You can download any web browser in Windows, but Microsoft is not required to host those browser installers. That would be ridiculous. Just imagine every time someone publicly launches a new browser (or a fork of an old one) Microsoft would have to follow up.
You can also already download any alternative app store through (your choice of) web browser in Android. Just have to toggle the option to allow sideloading, and then when you actually install, say yes at the warning. Functionally this is like the warning Microsoft pops up every time you try to install something not downloaded from their store, but with 2 places for someone to stop and think and confirm they got it from a trusted source instead of 1.
Amazon has had an alternative app store for years for Android. Hardly anyone really uses it as a consumer by choice. (In fact, many people who get Amazon tablets complain that the Google Play Store isn't on it.) For developers, there's not a huge incentive to join that store unless you develop for their fork of Android. If you develop for Amazon's OS, you miss out on the Google framework of APIs for a bunch of things. If you deliberately want to avoid being tied to Google's APIs it's probably for privacy reasons, so why would you pick Amazon's alternate ones, instead? There's several alternate third party and open-source-initiative stores, but there's also a lot that are shady. I'm linking F-Droid because the makers of Videolan list it among their official download sites, but you don't actually need the store as you can just download individual programs' installers off it. A store just makes it more convenient to manage.
If you make Google start hosting Epic's store installer, it will also have to host Amazon's and F-Droid's, but also probably other ones that are much less vetted. Just like if Microsoft had to host installers for Chrome and Firefox they'd have to host installers for Brave, Arc, Vivaldi, and anyone else. Who decides which browsers are legitimate, and who is going to make sure they don't sneak things like cryptominers in (again)? Nobody is forcing Microsoft to do this. Who decides which app stores are legitimate for Android? Your part 1 makes it look like you think Google should be responsible.
Android already has a gate into its garden. You can easily unlock it yourself, and it doesn't mess with any warranties. Amazon's app store on Android even uses their own payment methods in it. This was a terrible decision.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The Apple case isn't over yet. Last I read on the verge Apple was ordered to provide documentation on changes they made to the app store to accommodate other stores in May and that was due September 30th. On the weekly check in with the judge around September 26th apple said they only had like 600k documents but they vastly under estimated it (there's something like 1.6 million documents) and they would need more time. The judge denied an extension citing Apple with 'vast technical and legal resources, they would've know much earlier than 3-4 days before that they need more time to produce the documents.'
Haven't seen a follow up to see if apple somehow produced the documents or the aftermath but given this news I kinda get a feeling that the courts are fed up with dealing with Apple and Google on this matter.
It definitely is. You must be a new comer to anything Apple or just like to troll seeing as though you are on a Mac forum talking about "their camps". Most people that have Apple products can care less if you have or like google or Android. I've had every iPhone since launch including the unimpressive 16 pro max. My best friend has been a Galaxy user since like 2010. Before that we were both BlackBerry user. People honestly don't care what phone you like or use. Buy what you like, it's your money.
The blood is in the water. Apple will be next, can't wait!!
This is an extremist ruling. Was this judge secretly a ventriloquist doll controlled by Sweeney you might start to wonder.
Back in the 90s Microsoft was forced to display a screen to all users, in the eu at least, specifically giving them a choice of which browser they wanted to use.
A pop up if you like. Explicit permission had to be given To keep using Internet Explorer.
Monopolies are monopolies.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I don't know about US market and there payment gateway system but in India we have UPI system, so basically Venmo style payment method but way more powerful. Developer can implement UPI payment and user can pay without providing any card details. Its easy secure and govt. backed process.
Do they still have to? I haven't heard about that being a thing in years/decades.
I’m a Mac guy now so couldn’t comment.
I guess so many people are confusing monopolies with people’s businesses. The first are regulated by nearly every government in the world, for really good reasons. The second is free to legally do what ever it likes.