- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
For the next three years, Google must meet the following criteria:
- Allow third-party app stores for Android, and let those app stores distribute all the same apps as are available in Google Play (app developers can opt out of this);
- Distribute third-party app stores as apps, so users can switch app stores by downloading a new one from Google Play, in just the same way as they’d install any app;
- Allow apps to use any payment processor, not just Google’s 30 percent money-printing machine;
- Permit app vendors to tell users about other ways to pay for the things they buy in-app;
- Permit app vendors to set their own prices.
Google is also prohibited from using its cash to fence out rivals, for example, by:
- Offering incentives to app vendors to launch first on Google Play, or to be exclusive to Google Play;
- Offering incentives to app vendors to avoid rival app stores;
- Offering incentives to hardware makers to pre-install Google Play;
- Offering incentives to hardware makers not to install rival app stores.
IIRC they are doing things like requiring payments to go through them, and all kinds of other monopolistic stuff. Yeah, they aren’t doing all the same things, but they’re doing a lot of it, and it’s more restricted by default so it’s even more pervasive.
The payments requirement was the only win Epic got in its case against Apple. Apple now allows external purchase links, with a bunch of requirements and restrictions.
Ah, OK. I don’t think I ever heard about that resolving, or if I did I didn’t care. That’s good that they were forced to allow that. It should probably go further still, like this Google case.
The point is, it can’t go further like in this Google case, because Google is abusing their dominant market position and Apple isn’t.
Google is doing something illegal. Apple is doing something legal, but anti-consumer.
That’s why I said in order to go after Apple, the US would first need something akin to the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
It could absolutely be argued Apple is definitely doing illegal stuff too. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean that’s true. Apple is doing a lot of things to lock consumers onto their platform and not allowing competition.
Not me. Me and the courts. Against what you think.
They’ve literally been to court over this and won, because what they’re doing is completely legal. Even Epic acknowledged their case was shaky in regards to Apple.
Nothing in an illegal way, they mostly just make it a slight inconvenience to leave. Again, not illegal. Which is why I advocated making it so.
Why don’t you want laws that will hold Apple and others more accountable?
If it went to court at all, it’s not clearly legal. You saying “the courts” as a singular entity is misrepresenting the facts. Courts frequently come to different conclusions. Can you argue it’s legal? Sure. You can also argue it isn’t. A single court case is not consensus, it’s precedence (on the issues in that case specifically).
AG Garland, in a lawsuit by the US DOJ has this to say:
“Monopolies like Apple’s threaten the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based. They stifle innovation. They hurt producers and workers and increase cost for consumers,” Garland said Thursday.
“If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly. But there’s a law for that,” he added.
Clearly the AG believes them to be a monopoly. I assume he knows more about that law than both of us combined.
That’s not how the legal system works. You can sue anybody for anything. I can even use you for replying to me. It would just be thrown out of court, like the Epic Vs Apple case was.
The reality is, Apple got taken to court, comprehensively won the case, Epic acknowledged they never really had a chance anyway and said they’d go no further.
It’s completely legal.
Why are you against creating laws that will hold Apple accountable?