I don’t understand, you can pretty much install any app store on android.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you’re missing something, IMO.
Google to OEMs: Hey, I know we market Android as an open system, but since we know the market reality is that you can’t use other software, we’re going to force you into signing these agreements saying no third party app stores and you will bundle our software and telemetry, without giving the option to uninstall. You will also make installing apps from outside the play store show a scary message and requiring changes in the settings.
Google to app providers: Hey, there’s a 30% fee on anything both through the play store, and inside your apps once you’re done with the play store. Unless we have a secret backroom deal with you giving you an unfair advantage over competing apps, like we’ve done with Spotify and Netflix.
Courts: Uhhh all of that seems like an abuse of your market position, no?
Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I don’t think including the base store is even a bad thing. I reckon the big change from this will be that if your app is signed as an app store and preinstalled or in turn signed off by Google, the usual safety precautions are dropped and for all intents and purposes you can behave like the Google Store.
Though… I give it ~1-4 minutes until the shitstorm about malware installing their own app stores to get around all security begins. And in this particular content, Epic counts as malware, given the shit they did on PC.
Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful and insightful.
we’re going to force you into signing these agreements saying no third party app stores
So why do a bunch of OEMs have their own app stores?
- Extra revenue stream
- To be able to sell their devices in countries not supported by Google Play (China).
- As a leverage to get better licensing deal from google. Manufacturers must pay Google to include Play Store in their device, and it can cost up to $40 per device. By having their own app store, phone manufacturers might have some leverage in licensing cost negotiation (e.g. Google offering them money to not include other app store).
That’s clearly not what I was asking. The question was rhetorical because they DON’T prevent other OEMs from installing their own app stores.
Samsung has one and they aren’t allowed to have it as the default.
They are allowed to have it as the default. They’re just paid not to.
Nope.
…yep?
As a similar comparison, Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust laws with internet explorer even though everyone could pretty much install any browser they wanted to on Windows.
It is actually pretty surprising that the play store is the one getting the antitrust. You’d think Apple would’ve been an easier case.
It seems Google lost because they allow other app stores, but also because they paid off other companies not to include them.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see them take the Apple route in the future and just ban them altogether to avoid additional anti-trust suits.
No, Apple won on some technicalities.
- They don’t have a major market share globally (despite their larger market share in the US).
- Epic’s case was focused on games, which don’t make up the majority of revenue for the App Store, apparently
They don’t have a major market share globally (despite their larger market share in the US).
The case was in a US court but the court was only concerned with their global market share?
How does this have anything to do with market share anyway? They could have 1% and it would still be wrong.
Epic’s case was focused on games
I don’t understand what the difference is. Games are functionally and financially the same as every other app in the store.
How does this have anything to do with market share anyway?
Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.
My brother in Christ, if you think any size company should be allowed to engage in anticompetitive activities then we have nothing more to discuss.
When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.
So the law says “anticompetitive measures are totes chill as long as you’re not completely dominating the market”?
Yooooo that’s actually awesome. If they hit Apple next that’d get even better.
The play store has some weird security items attached to it that blocks your bank or even some games if your phone is rooted. I’d love if Google was forced to drop stuff like that to retain users.
that blocks your bank or even some games if your phone is rooted
That’s your bank and those games, not Google.
The games are obviously afraid of cheating/hacking. For the bank it’s about your account’s security. Root access gives a lot of power to potentially malicious actors, it’s definitely not weird for them to not work if your phone is rooted.
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to but I don’t it has to do with Play store, but rather Play Services, and that’s on your bank, and it’s probably a good thing.
Your bank doesn’t want anyone using their apps on insecure devices. Google Play services is how they ensure your device is secure.
At least that is my understanding.
I wonder if just this exposure will lead increased numbers to alternatives. Would that be good?
This is fucked up. I hate google but are they really the one getting the antitrust instead of apple?
