Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees

[Abazigal]

I’ve only heard a few very high profile developers complain. I’ve seen a number of smaller devs say the system suits them just fine. I’ve also seen a bunch of app buying opportunists who think this is their chance to get something for nothing— but those are people who think this will somehow affect app prices in general rather than just shift the split between Apple and devs.

I don’t think there have been any lawsuits around what the ”proper” percentage is, and I don’t think this is the main point of contention between Dev Sixpack and Apple. I think most devs care more about the review process.

A recent issue of the Macstories newsletter interviewed a developer who admitted that he had no issues with Apple taking a 30% cut of his app revenue. He did, however, wish that Apple would treat him (and many other developers) with more respect.

In his opinion, Apple viewed developers as a means to an end. There only to create apps that plug gaps in functionality which Apple either doesn't want to provide, or simply hasn't gotten round to it yet. And at any moment they feel like it, Apple can just muscle in on your turf and potentially render your entire business model moot.

That said, he still remains very much passionate about developing apps for iOS and has no desire to move anywhere else or support additional platforms anytime soon.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Why they are after Google which has many App Stores? I can understand if they go after Apple where there are no multiple App Sores available.

It just means you may not have understood what is at stake in these Anti Trust cases around App Stores made by companies that control both the hardware and the OS.

 

[Z1000ST]

Google has issued a statement..
(Removed link due to long mod approval wait)

I found this interesting…

“The complaint limits its definition of the app marketplace to Android devices only. This completely ignores the competition we face from other platforms such as Apple's incredibly successful app store, which accounts for the majority of mobile app store revenues according to third-party estimates. We compete for both developers and consumers, and if we’re not providing them with the best experience on Google Play, they have other alternatives to choose from.”

 

[farewelwilliams]

I don’t see how this is relevant.

Protecting users is extremely relevant in a business.

We have seen, time and time again, that the Play Store is not very safe.

and the iOS App Store has had malicious apps published too. doesn't mean it's not safe in general for users to use.

 

[collin_]

Protecting users is extremely relevant in a business.


and the iOS App Store has had malicious apps published too. doesn't mean it's not safe in general for users to use.

There is really no reason to think that the Play Store is any safer than sideloaded Android apps yet Google gives users tons of warnings and makes it very tedious and difficult. IMO that’s an obvious antitrust concern

 

[AppliedMicro]

You bought a Nintendo or SEGA console. For one console brand game manufactures negotiated an exclusivity agreement. The game was launched on a cartridge specific to one brand and could not be played on another brand

Fairly good comparison.

But game console developers back in the days were largely confined to catering to kids and adolescents with little computer games.

Apple's iOS and Google's Android developer bases and their products have far transcended children's rooms. Smartphones have not only become essential means of communication that have changed society. They've also become indispensable tools to do business with - and platforms to do business on.

Which is why, from a public policy standpoint, there are much more substantial reasons and much more pressure to regulate dominant platforms in this space. And more strictly than game console platforms.

And I have little doubt that governments will.

 

[farewelwilliams]

There is really no reason to think that the Play Store is any safer than sideloaded Android apps yet Google gives users tons of warnings and makes it very tedious and difficult. IMO that’s an obvious antitrust concern

Play Store has human reviewers and a constantly updating in house scanner system. It literally is safer than a sideloaded app that isn't being constantly monitored.

 

[collin_]

Play Store has human reviewers and a constantly updating in house scanner system. It literally is safer than a sideloaded app that isn't being constantly monitored.

Well if so you would never be able to tell based on the amount of widely distributed malware originating from it

 

[Solomani]

Which is stupid. It's Google's platform. As long as there is an alternative, let Google do what they want.

Agreed. There is a viable (and strong) alternative to Google (Android)... it's called Apple. And there is a viable alternative to Apple App Store. It's called Google Android.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Well if so you would never be able to tell based on the amount of widely distributed malware originating from it

What are you talking about? If Google has the ability to kick off any app from the Play Store, that is infinitely safer than installing sideloaded apps.

 

[collin_]

What are you talking about? If Google has the ability to kick off any app from the Play Store, that is infinitely safer than installing sideloaded apps.

I have been following tech news closely for over a decade. I have seen incident after incident of mass distributed malicious software on the Play Store. Google kicking off another huge malware app? Okay great but that’s not going to the fix the fact that it was already installed on 30,000,000 devices. The damage is always done before Google acts.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The grocery store and Apple both tell developers they can set their own prices.. and they will take their cut, e.g. 30%… the grocery store and App Store operate the same way.. but what developers are asking for is the ability to pay for something to bypass the App Store cut… that’s like going into the grocery store and paying the food vendor and not the grocery store owner.. and basically using the grocery stores infrastructure for free

Unlike the Grocery stores the App Store is fundamentally a mechanism to charge money transactions across all apps. For instance in a grocery store once you sell a bunch off groceries to a restaurant they don’t require 30% of the price of a meal they built and sold in the restaurant. Groceries adopted Apple way, they would inject a digital payment system into the groceries to than collect based on the price of the meal in whatever restaurant that was used. The 5 start Michelin cooks would love it.

Expanding, the only reason this transaction control mechanism is confined to the so so called digital goods and services is by Apples policy. It could has as well charge for “analogue” goods … say a desk, or a table … whatever. So we could as well as to compare it to a digital transaction/payment and billing system. Wait for an Apple desk that charges for your work, you know, the desk is amazing, revolutionary, innovative … it brings you customers.

They fundamentally leverage their markup by it being the only way iOS users can install apps to access digital services. Do this, or use the web browser. No one buys an iPhone or iPad to than use the web browser. They bought it because it runs applications to access the digital services. This would not be much of a problem if iOS marketshare was say 10%, but when in the country is 50% it can be anti competitive.

PS: Google does the same thing. The only company that it seams open to play fair as fare as far as App Stores go, is Microsoft. But than again, if they were in Apple’s shoes they would probably do the same or worst.

 

[jefhai]

Unlike the Grocery stores the App Store is fundamentally a mechanism to charge money transactions across all apps. For instance in a grocery store once you sell a bunch off groceries to a restaurant they don’t require 30% of the price of a meal they built and sold in the restaurant. Groceries adopted Apple way, they would inject a digital payment system into the groceries to than collect based on the price of the meal in whatever restaurant that was used. The 5 start Michelin cooks would love it.

Expanding, the only reason this transaction control mechanism is confined to the so so called digital goods and services is by Apples policy. It could has as well charge for “analogue” goods … say a desk, or a table … whatever. So we could as well as to compare it to a digital transaction/payment and billing system. Wait for an Apple desk that charges for your work, you know, the desk is amazing, revolutionary, innovative … it brings you customers.

They fundamentally leverage their markup by it the only way iOS users can install apps to access digital services. Do this, or use the web browser. No one buys an iPhone or iPad to than use the web browser. They bought it because it runs applications to access the digital services. This would not be much of a problem if iOS marketshare was say 10%, but when in the country is 50% it can be anti competitive.

PS: Google does the same thing. The only company that it seams open to play fair as fare as far as App Stores go, is Microsoft. But than again, if they were in Apple’s shoes they would probably do the same or worst.

You take the food out of the grocery store and the agreement is it’s yours… but stores can still check your receipt before you leave (Walmart and Costco)… but you never leave the agreement of the App Store on iOS.. you agree to the EULA when you use your iPhone for the first time. Technically you never leave the grocery store that is your iPhone/App Store. So this is how/why Apple is still charging. You pay for membership and the right to use the App Store and your iPhone.. Apple can ban you etc etc

So you fundamentally misunderstood your iPhone. The hardware is yours but the software you agreed to an end users license agreement (EULA) which says you agree to the rules of the AppStore.. and you don’t own any of the software you own a license to use the software which Apple can revoke for almost any reason. Your example of the grocery store isn’t the same situation here.. you don’t buy an App and leave the AppStore… it may feel that way to you but you are still under the EULA you agreed to when you use your iPhone.

 

[Tech198]

I see where this is going.. "You get one fish, you want to go more fish."

Just going after Apple just ain't enough... But at least its universal

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Technically you never leave the grocery store that is your iPhone/App Store.

I know how Apple is still charging.

Yes, even after you bought the iPhone over $1000, technically you are still on someone else property. You only leave by leaving everything you bought there behind, I mean everything. You may get some money for your device but that is just it. Has far as I know there no protection for you but plenty to the seller. This is unlike a Grocery store, when you leave you leave with your groceries, and this is the difference that matters!

For instance, when Apple did not allow MS to deploy an xCloud app demanding each game stream to be declared as an app (technically unnecessary) to than collect for each stream, not only that curate a third party library, in my opinion is a clear abuse. By doing this, it changed the nature of the property it has sold.

There is no balance of power.

Now the Anti Trust will analyze if that lack of balance is being or not abused by these big tech conglomerates.

You can think of the US law system has the operating system. The State as one of the processing units … . This mega companies have plenty o have plenty of hackers in their teams. Hacking the law, using undocumented APIs … is not illegal has is not illegal to hack an OS per si.

When it comes to software licensing as I remember the spirit what to protect the devs property rights over the software object, so you could not clone, copy, look in the code, change it … whatever tech in it.. For me, this spirit was hacked Apple and Google, using devices like App Stores tied to OSs to control the flow of money going through the device … not really about protecting their rights, but controlling the flow of users money … with some back doors of course … like the web browser ….

In other words, with a hack Apple and Google found an algorithm to protect their property regardless of everyone else property, control the flow of money in the devices they sell. Both, at close to 100% US marketshare in the mobile phone, both as a customer as and an entrepreneur I find this disturbing at many levels.

Apple nevertheless goes beyond Google. They are doing it also when say fixing devices. Apple asked me 550 euros to fix a lightning port on an iPhone X (1300 retail). I went to a non authorized shop and fixed it for 50 euros. I was lucky has it seams that it was done so well that it passed unnoticed when I went to a authorized shop to replace the battery, because such action would void their support agreement. I find this disturbing as a user too.

 

[jefhai]

I know how Apple is still charging.

Yes, even after you bought the iPhone over $1000, technically you are still on someone else property. You only leave by leaving everything you bought there behind, I mean everything. You may get some money for your device but that is just it. Has far as I know there no protection for you but plenty to the seller. This is unlike a Grocery store, when you leave you leave with your groceries, and this is the difference that matters!

For instance, when Apple did not allow MS to deploy an xCloud app demanding each game stream to be declared as an app (technically unnecessary) to than collect for each stream, not only that curate a third party library, in my opinion is a clear abuse. By doing this, it changed the nature of the property it has sold.

There is no balance of power.

Now the Anti Trust will analyze if that lack of balance is being or not abused by these big tech conglomerates.

You can think of the US law system has the operating system. The State as one of the processing units … . This mega companies have plenty o have plenty of hackers in their teams. Hacking the law, using undocumented APIs … is not illegal has is not illegal to hack an OS per si.

When it comes to software licensing as I remember the spirit what to protect the devs property rights over the software object, so you could not clone, copy, look in the code, change it … whatever tech in it.. For me, this spirit was hacked Apple and Google, using devices like App Stores tied to OSs to control the flow of money going through the device … not really about protecting their rights, but controlling the flow of users money … with some back doors of course … like the web browser ….

In other words, with a hack Apple and Google found an algorithm to protect their property regardless of everyone else property, control the flow of money in the devices they sell. Both, at close to 100% US marketshare in the mobile phone, both as a customer as and an entrepreneur I find this disturbing at many levels.

Apple nevertheless goes beyond Google. They are doing it also when say fixing devices. Apple asked me 550 euros to fix a lightning port on an iPhone X (1300 retail). I went to a non authorized shop and fixed it for 50 euros. I was lucky has it seams that it was done so well that it passed unnoticed when I went to a authorized shop to replace the battery, because such action would void their support agreement. I find this disturbing as a user too.

But Apple isn’t the only walled garden. Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Steam, Epic Games, EA Games, Ubisoft.. They all run software stores that operate the exact same way… Then there are companies like John Deere and Car Companies with proprietary software you have to go to their dealership to get your stuff fixed… It’s all very similar dilemma.. but all within the law.. So you are right they will see if Apple is over stepping, but no one has made a solid case why Apple is breaking the law about a walled garden or how 30% cut is too high

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But Apple isn’t the only walled garden.

Yes. But Anti Trust is not about being or not the only one to do this or that. Its about abuse of power.

When you have a walled garden around 1.5 billion and 4 billion respectively (Apple, Google) it is a different mater than say 80 million … At 6 billion size one can shape economies by controlling the flux of money … their own market and others.

This is just common sense. For instance children and adults are treated differently in the citizenship OS, acknowledging the differences. This is just an example where even though there is a category, companies, depending on their size a different judgement is used. This is applied to all companies … all humans.

What these giants want you to think is otherwise. They pretend to be just like children, excited about the future, like any other company. While fearlessly wing they bats …

This reasoning has nothing to do if you like or dislike Apple products.

PS: This not about breaking the law either. Laws aren’t all objective, on top abuse of power is subjective … at this level politics and economic principles kick in. Much like Apple application of their policies is at times subjective, ad-hoc ...

Now the difference between a responsible government and Apple is that if Apple fin you hacking their policies, within the rules yet against the spirit, you may be banned from using their OS or get inline. This does not happen in the citizen OS if you catch my drift … its accepted As fair game. Why? Because again the citizen OS is way, way more powerful than Apple OS … again a different judgement is necessary.

It’s incredible what you can do without breaking the law … but hacking it. I’ve seen people owing a billion euros to banks, not paying it, their assets not legally at state reach , and having the state (your taxes) paying for the financial damage. All legal.

Now I’m not comparing one case with the other. Just saying that just because something is legal it does not mean it is harmless to consumers.

Common sense founded in democratic principles where no property should absolutely overthrow the other by policy is crucial, regardless of context. But there is little in the software licensing context. You are required to trust your entire property(ies) with no garantees of anything, have your data being used to track you if not sold to third parties, as you have said with the new App Store scheme you own nothing now … and have the privilege of paying for it.

At the moment, Apple and Google property rights, empowered by their devices like the App Store, seam to be in a position to regardless and legally overthrow any other third party property rights, including device owners … and being payed for it. On top you have States doing partnerships with these companies to facilitate the hand over of say your drivers license … Meanwhile some guy is asking people and orgs for money to pay the state officials to even consider your Right to Repair, something that according to research 80% citizens were in favor … or pay for a Ballot as it seams the only option the bypass the “lobbyfication” (one can buy one as I’ve been told for 24M or so).

@farewelwilliams, than tells you that this context is objectively safer for everyone.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I have been following tech news closely for over a decade. I have seen incident after incident of mass distributed malicious software on the Play Store. Google kicking off another huge malware app? Okay great but that’s not going to the fix the fact that it was already installed on 30,000,000 devices. The damage is always done before Google acts.

Re-read what I said: "things that are there to protect the lesser capable users."

kicking off a huge malware app from the store literally protects several hundred million less capable users who have not downloaded the app from infecting their device.

did i say it's 100% secure and no user will never be infected ever? no.

where am I wrong?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

For instance, when Apple did not allow MS to deploy an xCloud app demanding each game stream to be declared as an app (technically unnecessary) to than collect for each stream, not only that curate a third party library, in my opinion is a clear abuse. By doing this, it changed the nature of the property it has sold.

And yet, xCloud is available. If there was NO other avenue, maybe abuse. But, not only is this solution agreeable to both Apple and Microsoft, Apple HELPED them get it up and running.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

And yet, xCloud is available. If there was NO other avenue, maybe abuse.

The presented definition of abuse is funny. Because, say a woman worker may always leave their work or accept being demoted to a corner of the system, problem solved ... so they can never be abused. Nice conditioning to the perception of abuse.

So it's not just a matter of having or not options, but if in-spite of the options if this kind of conditioning is or not abusive of either or both customers and suppliers considering their market share and the fact that both Apple and Google offer competing services.

 

[skinned66]

Sorry just not true. First, they did this on a store that has a tiny market share, not their locked store on their consoles.
This helps them gain market share for application distribution on Window (a smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of nothing). Second, they maintain the requirement that one use their payment system for games - the most valuable in-app purchase market. In other words, use the lower price and more liberal rules to get people to look at their store as a reasonable distribution platform and then get people already using the store to consider it instead of Steam and the other game stores.

I think you missed this part at the end:

>This should buy them time for when cases come for the games.

And sorry, it is true IMO. Regardless of what the market share is, there is no basis for a "monopoly" lawsuit from app developers now.

 

[collin_]

Re-read what I said: "things that are there to protect the lesser capable users."

kicking off a huge malware app from the store literally protects several hundred million less capable users who have not downloaded the app from infecting their device.

did i say it's 100% secure and no user will never be infected ever? no.

where am I wrong?

The Play Store has had tons of major security incidents. It’s not “safe” and neither is sideloading, so it’s an antitrust issue that Google makes sideloading very difficult. In fact, studies have shown that most Android malware comes from the Play Store. If the goal of the Play Store is to protect less capable users, then it is failing miserably at that goal.

If you want to sit here and tirelessly defend one of the largest corporations in the world, go ahead. But you will eventually realize that they don’t care about you. Let me know when you get your first paycheck for being Google’s personal lobbyist.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The Play Store has had tons of major security incidents.

Where did I say it didn't?

It’s not “safe”

Subjective. Agree to disagree.

In fact, studies have shown that most Android malware comes from the Play Store.

Because Play Store has the exponentially more downloads than sideloading. You expect a place that delivered 500 billion downloads to have less infections than the total number of sideloaded (probably less than a billion downloads) app infections (something that's hard for an end user to do)?

You're not making any sense at all.

If you want to sit here and tirelessly defend one of the largest corporations in the world, go ahead. But you will eventually realize that they don’t care about you. Let me know when you get your first paycheck for being Google’s personal lobbyist.

Yet I've bashed Google on this message board hundreds of times. Examples:

Google Planning to Update iOS Apps With Privacy Labels Soon

They drag their feet when it comes to supporting user privacy, but they're first to adopt any new data collection features. Classic Google.

forums.macrumors.com

Gmail Now Able to Be Set as Default Mail App on iPhone and iPad in iOS 14

oh when it comes to becoming a default app, Google implements it in a hot second...but when it comes to other iOS features, Google drags its feet.

forums.macrumors.com

Google Authenticator iOS App Gains New Export Accounts Option

dump google auth. just use 1pass. easy. authy is a piece of crap too.

forums.macrumors.com

Tell me again how I'm "Google's personal lobbyist".

I argue what is the right thing to do regardless of what company is in question. That's called being unbiased.

We're done here. Have a nice day.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The presented definition of abuse is funny. Because, say a woman worker may always leave their work or accept being demoted to a corner of the system, problem solved ... so they can never be abused. Nice conditioning to the perception of abuse.

So it's not just a matter of having or not options, but if in-spite of the options if this kind of conditioning is or not abusive of either or both customers and suppliers considering their market share and the fact that both Apple and Google offer competing services.

So, in case you weren’t aware, a woman worker is not a multi-trillion dollar multinational organization. I’ve known several women workers, and not a one of them have had portions of their body strewn across geographically diverse locations. Not while they were talking to me, at least.

No, I don’t know ALL women, I’m not saying I do and I know all women aren’t alike. And, it could be that every woman you have known has been one of two multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations. If that’s the case, then that’s why we have differing views on how a woman being demoted is NOT quite equal to two multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations having a difference of opinion and working to resolve that issue amicably.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So, in case you weren’t aware, a woman worker is not a multi-trillion dollar multinational organization.

I’m aware of that. In terms of abuse I don’t make distinction between rich, poor, gender, kinds of business entities ... It seams that you do, its ok to disagree.

My point is that abuse is not dependent on having options to deal with the conditioning or not. Central to the concept are the power relationships between entities in context and how it is used to condition the other parties. This is unlike your stance where central to the concept is having at least one other option, as crippling to the other as it can be.

Now, the concept is of course somewhat subjective, its cultural and in certain cases regional. Some conditioning my be accepted in one region while in others is unacceptable. China, USA and Europe … evaluate these situations differently. If a company wants to go Global, needs to deal with that.

In my opinion, Google and Apple requiring the digital economy that want to offer their customers an native app on the device of their choice to share 15%-30% of their revenue across billions of people, device that people have chosen to use for other reasons, its an abuse of market position, peoples choices and their properties. Not only that, but also conditioning how and what digital services can offer their customers within the confines of their property (in-app), with issues unrelated to privacy or security. Which is the case of the conditioning imposed to xCloud in order to offer their customers an native app on their customers devices. It is stifling innovation.

Cheers.