- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
good. now do apple, microsoft, amazon, meta…
First Apple then Google. On Android you can at least side-load properly
I hate Google as much as anybody else, but that Google has been ordered to open up when they already allow side loading, and Apple is apparently all good, is all you need to know this whole system is a joke.
It’s because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.
You can’t have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed.
The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.
Apple doesn’t do this. Yes, Apple’s system is more locked down than Google’s (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is.
Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is.
You can’t claim that Google is more anti-competitive because they try to control how others use their OS when Apple doesn’t even let anyone else do that, and they still maintain a near-majority market-share in the US.
Apple isn’t on third party hardware.
They aren’t controlling access to software on other manufacturers devices like Google is.
So, Google allows other OEMs to use their OS and tries to control how it’s used = anti-competitive.
Apple doesn’t let anyone else use their OS = totally fine?
Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They’re using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive.
You’re dictating the ToU of your software. They have zero control over others’ hardware.
That’s incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That’s the monopoly they’re abusing, and that’s what Epic is suing for.
What are the hardware requirements?
One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google’s arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.
This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That’s textbook anticompetitive.
It’s not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.
Google is big enough to be considered a monopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Play Store is technically a separate service / business which enjoys unfair advantage of being installed by default. I think this approach might be good because it’s better for user experience (unlike EU web browser thing for example) and has a good shot at postiviely affecting power balance between app developers and platform owner.
I’m curious how this will play out. Apple should be next obviously.
Apple was first. And the courts ruled it no problem.
