Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
Victory Royale.
Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
You're viewing a single thread.
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
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.
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can't find it anymore.
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn't seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can't sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.
Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.
I've heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?
I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.
That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae
Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.
Lawyers are bad, but I'm starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the 'wrong' judge assigned to your case and you're done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.
Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?
Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
Exactly
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)
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?
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
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren't caught.
The difference is that Apple is so vertically integrated, they can say that the existence of Android as an option negates any monopoly they might have on apps. Yes it's stupid.
the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
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.
That's literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge's interpretation.
This was a jury trial.