Google Ordered to Support Alternative App Stores and Payment Methods in Play Store

[wanha]

Pound sand Epic. Google and Apple built the devices and infrastructure. You may not like it and you can build your own. Epic is turning into a patent troll.

While I agree mostly with what you say, can I play the devil's advocate?

What if we compare SW platforms to utility companies, such as for water and electricity.

Don't like the price they charge for water or electricity? Too bad, go build your own infrastructure.

The EU has for better or worse designated iOS and Android as gatekeeper companies, which is to say they're comparing them to utility companies that are regulated for the common good.

imo this leads to two questions:

1. Should SW platforms be classified this way?
2. Can bureaucrats and politicians possibly understand and keep pace with the complex and fast-changing world of SW platforms?

 

[wanha]

So if someone creates a malicious alternative App Store, they can easily hide this fact by offering also all the Google Play Store apps well, yes?

Being able to offer millions of official, genuine apps will make it a lot harder to spot this behavior, because the malicious apps are only a handful in a sea of countless official apps.

Does Google have any recourse against this in the eyes of the law?

 

[bobbie424242]

According to the usual logic of this forum, Google should leave the US market.

 

[hans1972]

Apple fans are gonna have a meltdown when they realize they're defending Google and Android. 👍

No, this is a good thing for us since it makes the Android ecosystem worse.

We want bad things to happen to Google and good things happen to Apple since we're Apple users.

 

[hans1972]

Somewhat puzzling, why Epic won the case against Google, but mostly lost it against Apple. Anyone have a good explanation for this?

Anti-trust market
Epic v. Apple: "digital mobile gaming transactions"
Epic v. Google: "Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services"

This explains almost everything.

In addition, Epic was aextremely unprepared for the market definition the judge decided on in Epic v. Apple.

Shady business deals
Apple, for the most part, treated every developer of the same type equally bad and had for the entire existence of the App Store.

Google had a lot of shady and anti-competitive deals with phone manufacturers and app developers, stopping them from using other app stores. Internal email after email showed how Google executives contemplated, planned and executed these deals to avoid Google Play Store competition and also against Google's own apps.

Google deleted evidence
The judge told the jurors they could infer those deleted emails contained evidence which was negative for Google.

 

[MacFarmer]

Pound sand Epic. Google and Apple built the devices and infrastructure. You may not like it and you can build your own. Epic is turning into a patent troll.

maybe there is nothing promising in Epics pipeline...

 

[djphat2000]

Somewhat puzzling, why Epic won the case against Google, but mostly lost it against Apple. Anyone have a good explanation for this?

Because Apple was not deemed to be a Monopoly.

I don‘t like or trust Google.

Do you like or trust 3rd parties more on an Android platform made by Google or one made by Apple? If neither or none of the above. Then maybe don't carry either and just keep an old school cell phone for making calls.

I don‘t like or trust Google.

Ok.

They tried and failed.

People didn't pick them to win.

And the possibility of doing that (again but successfully) is merely theoretical

It always is. But, Microsoft is a 3 trillion dollar company just like Apple. So is Nvidia. They could team up and make something happen if they wanted to. Maybe work with EPIC and create a device more powerful and capable than anything else. Call it the MEN phone (Microsoft, EPIC and Nvidia). OS by Microsoft, EPIC makes the store, and Nvidia provides all the underling hardware.

- 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.

Again, something I go back to as why is it OK for EPIC and or any developer to NOT publish their apps on each platform that exists. While Apple and or Google HAVE TO allow any developer to publish apps on their device by any means the developer(s) wants? Developers should have been made to develop for each platform and THEN the consumer could pick something that works best for them, no? Instead, developers picked the most popular OS to develop for. So they could make the most money and save time and energy by not developing for non-popular mobile devices. Then complained they have to pay those platforms a % of their apps sales to those companies for which their success continues?

Perfect - as long as developers aren’t forced into accepting that bargain.

As long as they don't leave the Google Play or Apple AppStore. I should be able to purchase it how I want. I don't care how much the developer wants to charge or is being charged to have it on my platform of choice. It's my choice not theirs right? It's all about the consumer till it isn't.

 

[GrayFlannel]

Epic seems to be on the right side of this technology issue. The telephone and oil refinery industries went through it.

 

[Abazigal]

Google has to keep these changes in place for three years, starting on November 1, 2024.

So what exactly happens after 3 years? Do third party app stores just automatically get booted from the Google Play Store? Do apps using third party billing options just automatically get unsubscribed? At first glance, the judge's ruling deems pretty damning against Google, but the more you think about it, it seems to create more uncertainty than closure.

And I am not sure Apple has anything to worry about here. Anyone attempting to draw a parallel here is sorely mistaken.

 

[AppliedMicro]

This is a similar story with Tesla. They take on all the risk and create a successful infrastructure(Charging network).

Very good example, yes. 👍

Charging networks are fundamental infrastructure - just as are gas station networks for combustion engine vehicles. There‘s huge benefits for competition and consumers when they‘re interoperable.

Every(almost) Manufacturer wants to piggy back off of them instead of coming up with their own infrastructure thus the NACS standard.

They want to use and benefit from existing interoperable Infrastructure, yes. And that is good for consumers. Just like it’s good that gas stations aren’t run by car manufacturers: It ensures competition on both fuel and car markets.

Let’s keep with the analogy and imagine one or two large car manufacturers long ago found a way of “tying” their cars to a certain type of proprietary fuel that only they can make or license (cryptographically sign):

- Cars from one manufacturer can only run with manufacturer-provided fuel
- The large car manufacturer (or maybe two) set up its proprietary gas station network
- Due to their first-mover advantage, their cars become very popular with consumers
- …which increases usage and economies of scale for their gas station network
- …which in turn disincentivises consumers from buying cars with less available refuelling infrastructure
- …which yet again increases demand for their cars
- …and fuel

…until at one point, the market converges into a monopoly or duopoly of vertically integrated “walled-garden” car companies. A monopoly or duopoly that’s entrenched due to the high costs of entering the market.

Consumers won’t buy a buy a car without an established network of charging infrastructure. Neither will businesses. And no competitors will invest into charging infrastructure if there’s no or only few compatible cars owned/used in that market.

And I tell you one thing: We’d all pay more for more fuel - and have a less competitive car market. Worse cars and/or higher prices.

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.

Soft drink markets aren‘t even subject even nearly to similar network effects and entry barriers as are smartphone operating systems and their application stores.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But, Microsoft is a 3 trillion dollar company just like Apple. So is Nvidia. They could team up and make something happen if they wanted to

Microsoft literally “teamed up” with the biggest, most experienced and popular cell phone manufacturer at that time (Nokia). It didn’t happen - same little true competition to Microsoft Windows emerged in the PC space - though competitors have tried.

General-purpose operating systems are truly “winner(s) take it all” markets.

I go back to as why is it OK for EPIC and or any developer to NOT publish their apps on each platform that exists. While Apple and or Google HAVE TO allow any developer to publish apps on their device by any means the developer(s) wants?

Epic and their games depend on the operating systems they run on - not vice versa.
And there‘s ample competition to their game products.

If, on the other hand, Epic provided an application or service that as many consumers and/or businesses ”have to be on” (depend on) as Apple or Google, I’d advocate that they‘re regulated to offer their apps for important platforms.

 

[shamino]

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.

Which was an equally brain-dead decision by the courts. Microsoft never ever did anything preventing the installation of third-party web browsers. Anybody who actually cares was, and still is, free to install whatever he wants. I've been running Firefox (and before that, Mozilla and Netscape) on Windows going all the way back to Windows 3.1, and I've never run Internet Explorer, except as needed to download a Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox installer.

It's not an abuse to provide an app that nobody is forced to use. Just like it's not an abuse for Google to bundle their own app store when there are dozens of others that anyone can install, should they choose to do so.

 

[djphat2000]

Microsoft literally “teamed up” with the biggest, most experienced and popular cell phone manufacturer at that time (Nokia). It didn’t happen - same little true competition to Microsoft Windows emerged in the PC space - though competitors have tried.

General-purpose operating systems are truly “winner(s) take it all” markets.

If that was the case, there would be no Linux and the various distro's of them. There are plenty of OS's to pick from that runs on a multitude of hardware. The dominate being Windows for general purpose computers. But, you can install other OS's as they exist a plenty.

Nokia being a previously largest handset maker at the time. Microsoft was not and still is not much of a hardware company. That goes to Apple, as being both hardware and software. This is more of a Microsoft is just terrible at the OS kind of thing. Had they not waited, and had they created a truly mobile first OS. Such as iOS is to Mac OS, and Android is to Linux. They could have been fine. CE wasn't great, but it worked. And Metro was better at a mobile OS type UI but, not for desktop. And they wanted to merge the two. Which was TERRIBLE. Maybe they should have bought Black Berry for the business end of the market, and Nokia with the consumer end? No matter. I think Microsoft simply waited too long and didn't think much of the market that Apple/Google ended up taking. They could have been a third or forth player (WebOS HP/Palm). But, they wasted the opportunity.

Epic and their games depend on the operating systems they run on - not vice versa.
And there‘s ample competition to their game products.

Not a good enough reason for me. They are a business like any other trying to make as much money as they possibly can. This is the way, and I'm not mad at them for it. But, don't make their means of getting paid more valuable than any other.

If, on the other hand, Epic provided an application or service that as many consumers and/or businesses ”have to be on” (depend on) as Apple or Google, I’d advocate that they‘re regulated to offer their apps for important platforms.

You don't have to be on iOS or Android. You can still purchase a basic phone to make calls. You can travel with a thin and light laptop and a cell modem to do almost anything your mobile phone can do. Cash still works in most places globally. We don't have to be on. It's certainly better than the alternatives, but we have alternatives

 

[MacBH928]

This is ironically funny because everyone thought Epic was nagging and they were going to lose 🤣

That being said, downloading a competitor store from your store just doesn't sound right.

 

[Stromos]

Just amazes me people cheer for things like this. Do you like your iPhone/Android device?

This is saving end users zero money. It’s just taking money from one large company and giving it to another.

Epic isn’t going to have things cheaper on their store they are going to pocket more money. (They might knock off a dollar here and there and make you think it’s amazing)

Epic doesn’t make my iPhone. They are doing all of this because they want to contribute nothing to Apple.

If Apple/Android isn’t getting money from these companies that leaves you.

Apple had its worst phone/OS launch this year. They lost tons of money between the EU and losing the Google search money. They didn’t pass the cost to consumers but it’s pretty obvious they cut corners with this years OS releases and put everything into AI crap they plan to charge for in the near future.

I expect things to get worse across Apple and Android as they continue to lose all this money. They will either hide it cutting corners or pass the cost directly to end users via price hikes.

Supporting this is supporting less innovation for the devices you use every day. Epic isn’t gonna pay Apple/Android a dime when the dust settles and we are going to suffer for it.

These companies don’t lose money they make up for it however they can. Shareholders always win.

 

[falainber]

"-30% cut is removed" So a developer of a platform is not allowed to profit off of that platform? Why?

"- Alternative payment methods everywhere" Which means it would be extremely easy to get your credit card / bank account stolen by a bad actor with their own "payment method". You see already thousands of those on the internet. Do you want people to get scammed more easily? Because that is what you'll get.

I want a device with one way of installing apps. So I can be certain those apps are safe. I want also ONE way to pay on that device for those apps. So I know who has access to my data if something bad happens. (legally)

And I want that there were only one grocery chain in the country so that I would always know where the stuff is, use a single store card and a credit card. Would not that be peachy?

 

[I7guy]

And I want that there were only one grocery chain in the country so that I would always know where the stuff is, use a single store card and a credit card. Would not that be peachy?

There is already. It’s called Amazon.

 

[StyxMaker]

Klasma

“It’s more like if Walmart and Target are the only two stores in existence, and your car is either a Walmart car or a Target car and won’t drive to the other one, and anyone who wants to sell a product has to go through either Target or Walmart, or else has to start manufacturing cars and build stores, and hope that enough people will buy their new car instead of a Target or Walmart car.”

And your analogy demonstrates how ridiculous it is to insist on treating online software stores like they are physical buildings selling physical products.

 

[SanderEvers]

And I want that there were only one grocery chain in the country so that I would always know where the stuff is, use a single store card and a credit card. Would not that be peachy?

In the country? You can surely go to a different groeceries store. Just like you can buy a Phone with a different OS. It's like forcing a groceries store to sell house brand products from other grocery stores. Just extremely stupid if you ask me.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Epic isn’t going to have things cheaper on their store they are going to pocket more money

They are going to.
Epic charge lower commissions than Google or Apple’s 30% for large developers. So do Microsoft.

I expect things to get worse across Apple and Android as they continue to lose all this money

Apple isn’t losing losing money.
They’re highly profitable.
So is Google - ans they both basically provide intermediary services (between software developers and consumers).

Epic isn’t gonna pay Apple/Android a dime when the dust settles and we are going to suffer for it.

We won’t.

Apple are one of the most profitable large tech companies in the world - and so are their iPhone and ”Services” business. They earn way more than they need to invest in making their products and invest in R&D.

A sizeable part of your money spent on iPhones and apps goes straight into Apple’s profits and stockpile of cash (simplifying their capital structure a bit here). And that - Apple stockpiling cash from profits - does not benefit customers at all. Quite the contrary: we’re all paying (much) more than it costs to develop, make and ship things.

They will either hide it cutting corners or pass the cost directly to end users via price hikes.

These companies don’t lose money they make up for it however they can. Shareholders always win.

Being able to unilaterally set prices and margin and/or earnings is indicative of lack of competition.

👉 That is the best reason why they should be regulated.

In the country? You can surely go to a different groeceries store. Just like you can buy a Phone with a different OS

There’s much lower market concentration in the grocery store market than there is on
There’s a much higher number of relevant grocery stores (chains) than mobile operating systems or application stores.

And you don’t “buy in” to a grocery store with a device/vehicle that costs hundreds of dollars to access the store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If that was the case, there would be no Linux and the various distro's of them

They’re largely irrelevant as a general purpose desktop OS for consumers - let alone commercial developers if consumer applications. There are other smartphone operating systems too - and they‘re just as irrelevant in the U.S. (or Europe) than Linux is for desktop computing.

And Metro was better at a mobile OS type UI but, not for desktop. And they wanted to merge the two. Which was TERRIBLE

It was a good UI for phones - but they alienated consumers by trying to shove it down their throats on desktop Windows (8). In addition to being unable to generate enough traction with third-party developers.

You don't have to be on iOS or Android.

Software developers or digital services (like music streaming or dating apps) have to be.
They can’t just ignore half of the market (consumer spend) and be competitive.
Let alone ignore both Android and iOS.

You can still purchase a basic phone to make calls. You can travel with a thin and light laptop and a cell modem to do almost anything your mobile phone can do

Theoretically but not practice. That’s like telling a modern-day farmer he can use horses to till his field - when he doesn’t like John Deere tractors and their extortionate business conduct.

Can I get my relevant public transport apps or access to my online banking without smartphone apps that are only available on the App Store and Play Store? No, I can’t.

 

[SanderEvers]

There’s much lower market concentration in the grocery store market than there is on
There’s a much higher number of relevant grocery stores (chains) than mobile operating systems or application stores.

And you don’t “buy in” to a grocery store with a device/vehicle that costs hundreds of dollars to access the store.

So the groceries store is a bad example to begin with. Noted.

However, if Nokia and Microsoft both hadn't abandoned their Smartphone OS'es. The argument would've been a lot weaker right now. So why did they stop developing theirs? Well, Microsoft bought the phone branch of Nokia (and sold it) and then failed to sell Windows 8 to OEMs. Killing two OSes that existed WAY before iOS and Android.

So the solution is not force Google / Apple into things their userbase doesn't want. But develop a new mobile OS that does exactly what does the thing you would want it to do. So the EU should invest money in companies developing a seperate mobile OS. And Epic should make one.

And honestly it's perfectly possible to make a 'new' OS. Just base it off of Linux and make it popular. See what Valve did with the Steam Deck. You know Valve, the primary competitor of Epic.

 

[shamino]

However, if Nokia and Microsoft both hadn't abandoned their Smartphone OS'es. The argument would've been a lot weaker right now. So why did they stop developing theirs?

Ummm.... Because those phones were not commercially successful. Because people didn't want phones based on Tizen (and other OS's), for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion

Well, Microsoft bought the phone branch of Nokia (and sold it) and then failed to sell Windows 8 to OEMs. Killing two OSes that existed WAY before iOS and Android.

Again, because these OS's were not what people wanted to run. So they took their money elsewhere.

Just like we saw with PalmOS and Blackberry. People decided they preferred Android and iOS and therefore abandoned the other platforms.

The Apple/Google duopoly is not the result of nefarious plans, but because these systems give customers what they want, and the ones that fell by the wayside did not.

So the solution is not force Google / Apple into things their userbase doesn't want. But develop a new mobile OS that does exactly what does the thing you would want it to do. So the EU should invest money in companies developing a seperate mobile OS. And Epic should make one.

And honestly it's perfectly possible to make a 'new' OS. Just base it off of Linux and make it popular. See what Valve did with the Steam Deck. You know Valve, the primary competitor of Epic.

You mean like Google did when they created Android? Or like many Chinese phones run non-Google builds of Android (and therefore require use of non-Google app stores)?

This option has always been available. But most people don't want it. They actually like iOS and Android, and they like the robust app stores available on each platform.

I don't know of any users who are clamoring for a third mobile OS. I only hear about this from manufacturers and cell carriers who want to have total (monopoly?) control over the software run on devices they manufacture and sell, like is for dumb "feature" phones, and it was for most mobile devices before the iPhone was introduced. But would that be better for any users? To have a dozen mobile operating systems, all incompatible with each other?

 

[SanderEvers]

Ummm.... Because those phones were not commercially successful. Because people didn't want phones based on Tizen (and other OS's), for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion



Again, because these OS's were not what people wanted to run. So they took their money elsewhere.

Just like we saw with PalmOS and Blackberry. People decided they preferred Android and iOS and therefore abandoned the other platforms.

The Apple/Google duopoly is not the result of nefarious plans, but because these systems give customers what they want, and the ones that fell by the wayside did not.

That's my point, exactly. Forcing a company to offer alternatives is not going change things.
Trying to force something to happen always ends up being worse for all parties involved.

You mean like Google did when they created Android? Or like many Chinese phones run non-Google builds of Android (and therefore require use of non-Google app stores)?

Google did not create android. They bought the company that created android.

This option has always been available. But most people don't want it. They actually like iOS and Android, and they like the robust app stores available on each platform.

Again, that was my point.

I don't know of any users who are clamoring for a third mobile OS. I only hear about this from manufacturers and cell carriers who want to have total (monopoly?) control over the software run on devices they manufacture and sell, like is for dumb "feature" phones, and it was for most mobile devices before the iPhone was introduced. But would that be better for any users? To have a dozen mobile operating systems, all incompatible with each other?

Again, my point. But also; operating systems don't have to be incompatible. You could base them largely on the same base system.
Like for example...


Linux.

 

[Abazigal]

While I agree mostly with what you say, can I play the devil's advocate?

What if we compare SW platforms to utility companies, such as for water and electricity.

Don't like the price they charge for water or electricity? Too bad, go build your own infrastructure.

The EU has for better or worse designated iOS and Android as gatekeeper companies, which is to say they're comparing them to utility companies that are regulated for the common good.

imo this leads to two questions:

1. Should SW platforms be classified this way?
2. Can bureaucrats and politicians possibly understand and keep pace with the complex and fast-changing world of SW platforms?

I will go back to the adage - there is good in bad, and bad in good.

Currently, Apple appears to have no plans to make Apple Intelligence available in the EU, and iPhone mirroring is missing as well with the latest macOS update. This is because the DMA is not so much an attack on the closed nature of the App Store, but an all-out assault on Apple's integration. Whether this was the EU's intent all along, or some sort of "unintended consequence", I can't say for certain, but it is happening. And it is possible that in the future, Apple will continue to withhold select features that entail tight integration between the iPhone and other Apple devices, just to avoid contravening the DMA.

In exchange, users in the EU get third party app stores and the ability to switch app defaults. Is it worth it? Perhaps in the short run, because not every iPhone user owns a Mac, and the majority of iPhones likely can't support Apple Intelligence anyways. But what happens years down the road when Apple Intelligence is considered "standard issue" on every Apple device the same way airdrop is now (while continuing to improve every year), while EU customers continue to not be able to access it due to their own legislation? Will it still be worth it then? Do users really want to toggle between half a dozen banking and payment apps vs having all consolidated in Apple Pay? Or contend with multiple app stores? Sometimes, what is good for businesses may not be good for the end user, and maybe it's just a tradeoff EU citizens have to be willing to accept.

Second, you also have to wonder what this means for future innovation in the tech space in the EU. There is a reason why virtually all the companies being subject to the DMA come from the US, and not the EU. Why would anybody want to risk sinking all that time and money into trying to come up with the next big thing, if they are just going to end up having their property rights stripped away and be someone else's infrastructure? it is my opinion that the DMA will only serve to entrench the current status quo where you have two major smartphone companies in the market. Again, does this make it ironic, or is it merely a tacit admission of reality?

So as with any ruling, there will always be winners and losers (and those who win and / or lose more than others). I guess which side you favour ultimately depends on which side you end up being on.