Victory Royale.

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

      • phx@lemmy.worldEnglish
        671·
        2 years ago

        But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.

        At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the “you can’t buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut” which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc

        • Gestrid@lemmy.caEnglish
          31·
          2 years ago

          Yeah, the Kindle app pretty blatantly tells you why they removed in-app purchases.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        “Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility into iFreespace and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time as per the iNflanational iFukU-nion that is a slight inconvenience for anyone not part of the of the 23.000.001 iToUrPPs living aboard the ilolTax Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23”

  • sirdorius@programming.devEnglish
    883·
    2 years ago

    Didn’t Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.

    Edit: for future reference, Verge answers this very question here https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly

    • bleuthoot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      612·
      2 years ago

      EDIT: Added source from where I read it.

      From some other comment I read, it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google’s stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.

      This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:

      The “this doesn’t make sense” crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store… but we can can all guess how well that would have went… not well. So the open source route makes sense.

      Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn’t control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

      If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they’d have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn’t do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I’m not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn’t be a surprise.

      Source

      There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can’t find it anymore.

      • Phrodo_00@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        True, but that’s more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn’t have any relation. As far as epic goes, they’re only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it’s allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)

    • stewsters@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it when they are so much more restrictive.

      Can this ruling be used in the future against Apple?

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      131·
      2 years ago

      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.

      From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6710·
    2 years ago

    ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        374·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html

        It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.

        • bigFab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          2 years ago

          Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.

          • yamanii@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      404·
      2 years ago

      No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago

  • candle_lighter@lemmy.mlEnglish
    574·
    2 years ago

    So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn’t even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.

    Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.worldEnglish
      141·
      2 years ago

      They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 years ago

        They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store.

        Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.

    • Killer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      2 years ago

      looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      441·
      2 years ago

      Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      262·
      2 years ago

      Apple: this is our system and we’ve always been upfront about it. We’re dictators of our ecosystem. You can’t compel us to open up. Yes there’s less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we’ve always made that clear to everybody. Forcing us to open up our system is like forcing Nintendo to allow Microsoft games on the Switch, bypassing paying Nintendo anything.

      The courts say fair enough, that’s correct.

      Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don’t. We’re using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they’re big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice than to comply.

      The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your dominant market position.

      You’re looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That’s not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    2 years ago

    I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?

    Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)

    Sorry if it’s a stupid question.

  • odium@programming.devEnglish
    121·
    2 years ago

    Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android

    I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      172·
      2 years ago

      Fdroid better stay as FOSS and privacy focused. I don’t want to see Spotify or some subscription brand bullshit up there.

      • arthurpizza@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        I don’t believe the F-Droid will ever be implementing any kind of payment processing through the app store.

  • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
    176·
    2 years ago

    Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android

    This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic Games Launcher free game downloader for games I forget I own. I’m very unlikely to start using Epic’s services over Google’s.

    I’d have taken the money and run

    • nul9o9@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      2 years ago

      I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.

      • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        2 years ago

        Ah ok that’s def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.

        Hadn’t considered it.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 years ago

      I’d have taken the money and run

      That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.

      Sometimes it’s okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it’s usually worth the try.

  • nixcamic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    57·
    2 years ago

    What’s with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?

  • cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    2 years ago

    'It’s a win for everyone" except if Google (and Apple) were to start playing “fair”: no more restriction on apps, but they charge full price for the service of hosting and providing a searchable store to something million users. That way, only big business that can pay for that kind of service will be able to use each platform’s “main” store, and every (big business owner) will be happy.

    There’s no free meal in there. Not for the majority of users, at least.