• The Barto@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    8 months ago

    If the Google Play store is a monopoly, then what the fuck is the apple store? At least on android you’re not forced to only use the play store if you choose, unless you do some sketchy shit to your iPhone, you’re stuck with their store only.

    • whs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I believe the argument Apple used is that the PlayStation or Xbox doesn’t need to have an alternative app store and everyone is fine with that, so iPhone is a similar device. Android, on the other hand, allow for installation of external app store.

    • kwirky@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Epic already tried and failed with the same argument against Apple, from the article:

      Epic in 2021 mostly lost a nearly identical case against Apple over its own app store monopoly for iOS devices, and it is waiting to find out whether the US Supreme Court will hear an appeal.

      • TheWildTangler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You looked at the text but clearly didn’t read it.

        They’re saying that if Apple won the same lawsuit when it’s appstore is an actual monopoly, then Epic doesn’t stand a chance against Google.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Imagine how Apple will feel if Google got docked for this. Apple’s app store is even worse. You can’t even side load apps on an iPhone/iPad without jailbreak.

    • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Epic sued Apple in 2021. Google and Apple removed Fortnite from their respective app stores within hours of each other. Epic was ready with lawyers and announced they were going to court. They lost the case against Apple. They’ve already filed an appeal.

  • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    How could it be? Most Android manufacturers, including Google, allow you to use other app stores.

    If anyone has an Unjust Monopoly in this space it’s Apple. (Though I think it’s unfortunately more complicated than that, as much as I’d love to see Apple forced to let other app stores on.)

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed. So the only way to install another one, is to go out on the net and download an APK directly. When you try to install it, the system gives you a warning that it can be dangerous. Just those two hurdles are enough to ensure the vast majority of users will never leave the hurdle-less Play Store.

      • DasherPack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        In xiaomi phones there is a xiaomi store, in Samsung phones there is a galaxy store, and here in Spain if you buy a phone through a ISP, you may get another app store from said ISP (I know Orange and Vodaphone do this, Vodaphone going as far as preinstalling shitty mobile games on their phones to get a commission)

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed.

        Not saying it’s much better, but my phone came with the playstore and the “Galaxy store”… now there isn’t a lot of useful stuff in the Galaxy store, but you can wager money against other players in games of solitaire, bingo and bubble pop… so there’s that at least…

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        And? For anyone who actually wants another app store, that’s not exactly a high bar of technical know-how. In fact, for the most part it’s the way stuff works on other platforms as well (provided you even have the option of choosing on those).

        If you want to install Steam on Windows you need to download it, click through, and run the installer.

        Linux may have snap etc, but to add unofficial software channels you need to manually edit things.

        Apple straight out says “nope” on iOS unless you jailbreak.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Imagine how untenable Apple’s position would be if the Play Store is proven to be a monopoly.

      • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Apple has already gone through this. Apple won. It’s unlikely epic will beat Google either. When they likely lose, they will file an appeal just like they’ve done with Apple.

      • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Epic and Apple have already had this battle two years ago. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. They served Apple and Google at the same time. Google removed Fortnite within hours of Apple doing so. Epic will battle Google, and if they lose here, they will likely appeal this too.

        • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          This is correct, but misses some semantics. Apple won because they argued that they controlled everything on the iPhone to give it a coherent design. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to allow 3rd parties to swap out the profitable component from underneath them.

          Google on the other hand has always allowed 3rd party versions of things on Android- so Google can’t make the same argument.

          (I’m not defending anything here, only summarizing the cases)

          • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            That’s fair. I didn’t want to go into too much detail, and there is some information on this in the posts linked article. I still think Google will win this though. While both companies have revenue in the billions, Google has revenue nearly a hundred times epic. That seems to usually factor in to who wins these things.

            I’m just baffled by how many people are saying “Google?! Let’s put Apple on trial instead!” Apple has already gone through this and will likely again. This information is spelled out pretty clearly in the linked article. In my opinion, they should all be on trial. As much as I love steam, valve should be on trial too. 30% cut for the platforms the majority of people use (effectively locking devs into using those platforms) is an insult, and it’s untenable for a lot of smaller devs.

            These predatory pricing practices are equivalent to highway robbery to me. If we keep saying, oh Apple should be on trial not Google! then these companies win. They want us to be in conflict with each other so we don’t notice the other hand moving.

            Edit: and I know you agree with me, so I hope this isn’t coming off hostile or directed at you. If it is, then I apologize.

    • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a monopsony - a monopoly from the other side.

      Google Play Store is not the single seller of apps to users but a single sensible buyer from developers. Of course with most apps being free of change, “buyer” and “seller” are loose terms to satisfy the definition.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s both really.
        As an app developer it’s a monopsony.
        As an app user its a monopoly.

    • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Epic already went to court for the same thing with Apple in 2021. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. Apple and Google both removed Fortnite from their respective stores within hours of each other.

      It’s unlikely epic will win this battle, but if they don’t, they will likely file an appeal against Google as well.

    • Teknikal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve noticed the play store try and stop me from installing the odd sideloaded or fdroid app. It seems to be getting more common the last few months.

      I’m thinking they are going to pull a no sideloaded thing sometime just to get rid of adblockers etc

    • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It wouldn’t hurt forcing them to allow other app stores to be listed in the app store.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Microsoft was considered a monopoly for including internet explorer with windows, despite the fact you could still install a 3rd party browser.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        They weren’t considered a monopoly for including IE, they were considered a monopoly for very much being the dominant OS and then were abusing said monopoly to block competing products or standards.

  • arc@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    Google Play is a monopoly in practice, but it’s not like other app stores don’t exist and might even be preinstalled. Samsung’s store is baked into their phones. AOSP forked firmwares (Kindle, Baidu, LineageOS, etc.) might not have Google apps at all. But even on Google android phones, Amazon Appstore, Samsung Galaxy Store, F-Droid etc. can be sideloaded. Even apps like Netflix are turning into app stores to give away stuff with a subscription. Any APK at all is available to sideload assuming someone wants to.

    So it’s a defacto monopoly and perhaps it is intended that way by Google knowing few people will bother to install anything else even when the door is open to do it. Is it any different from most other platforms though? Apple is completely shut. So are XBox, Nintendo & Playstation. Even Windows has a preinstalled appstore that Microsoft is pushing hard with things like Windows S (“safe mode”) to stop people from escaping.

    As for Epic, I think they’re just pissed that Google wanted a quid pro cut of the profits. They feigning shock that in return for putting Fortnite in front of a lot of eyeballs, promoting it, facilitating millions of download/installation/updates that Google would want something in return. Epic demonstrated they could sideload Fortnite via an APK downloaded from their store so they can pick their poison - distribute a game entirely for themselves, or do it via a store subject to the terms and conditions.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Is it possible that alternatives are not widely used because most people don’t want to use alternatives in the first place?

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.

    • guyrocket@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not the world’s most elite hacker, but I know a thing or two and it took me a long time to get F-Droid going on my Android and even longer to figure out how to side load apps and where to get the files for side loading.

      It can be done but I’d guess 99% of people out there have never and will never do these 2 things.

  • Octopus@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s such a monopoly!! Epic Games decided they don’t want to pay Google a 30% cut so didn’t put Fortnite on the Play Store, and now they have absolutely no way of making an Android version! (/s)

    What’s up with Apple not allowing sideloads? They also have an app store, AND don’t allow installing from outside of it. Users can only do that if they hack their devices. You can kinda de-Google stock Android, and disable all Google apps to not show up, and install a third-party store. You can fully de-Google it by rooting. There is a literal button to unlock the OEM, and then you can unlock the bootloader, and root or install a custom OS. Sure, it’s not that easy, but you can. No matter how scary the warning is that it gives at boot, it’s still an intended thing. Just because it gives a warning when you install an *unsigned app, it isn’t a monopoly. Windows SmartScreen also does it when an app is unsigned, and the install anyways button is hidden behind a more details button.

    Ok, it can’t auto-update without root and Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores to be put on it, I just don’t understand why they are targetting Google out of all things.

    They could make a section in the Play Store that lists other trusted app stores, and maybe even allow downloading them directly from the Play Store, but I can’t decide if they should manually put them there, allow free submissions, or allow submissions while still having to pay. And they should make implementation of auto-updates for non-system apps easier.

    This is definitely not an unjust monopoly tough.

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because as you said, it’s impossible to create an alternative app store that works and auto update like the Play Store does.

      Google has is in a duopoly with Apple for smartphones OS. They are abusing their dominant position on mobile OS to ensure a dominant position on mobile app stores.

      That’s exactly what the antitrust laws are about: abusing your position in one domain to kill competition on another.

      Yes Apple is worse, that means the situation needs to change on both platforms.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s COMPLETELY possible to have an alternative app store that does these things. You could install F-Droid on your phone if you so wished right now. Many phones have Samsung’s app store baked into them. Amazon also have an app store.

        It would more correct to say that Google preinstalls Play store and enjoys the power of the default - this stuff is in all their licensed phones, it does the job and vast majority people lack a motivation to use anything else. But if people were motivated they could do something else it since the door isn’t completely closed as it is on many other platforms.

        I think this is just Epic getting pissed that they either have to agree to the terms of using Play, including give a cut of in-app purchases or go it alone and do their own thing. They could even have their own app store if they wanted - who knows if they had better terms than Google then maybe they could attract other games onto the platform, or find some other model, like curated subscription based gaming.

        • lutillian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          If you wanted fdroid to update apps automatically you’d need to have some system level service running like Google Play services. This is course could be achieved with a custom rom or using root. (This is how huwai and other devices that don’t get the play store, as well as Samsung handle their own stores) [untrue as of Android 12, see below comment]

          That said I view automatic updates as an anti feature most of the time. I should be asked if I want updates. You can of course turn off auto updates in the play store too though so that’s more of a side note.

    • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Epic games decided they don’t want to pay 30% of every transaction to Google or Apple. They sued Apple already and lost. They’ve filed an appeal, so we will hear more on that soon ish. I’m not an epic fan at all, but 30% of all sales is ridiculous. Epic themselves take 12% on the epic store. Valve, Apple, Google—none of these companies should get a third of the sale price for everything sold through an app downloaded from there store. Not just the price of the app, but all app revenue. Every in app purchase. All of it.

      The $25 registration fee is just for the account. That’s negligible considering Apple charges $100 a year. It’s the commission these companies take that epic is suing over.

      • ryper@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The Epic Games Store isn’t profitable so it may not be a good example for how fees should be set.

        Also, Epic is trying to argue lower fees would benefit consumers but games generally aren’t cheaper on Epic’s store than on Steam.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah I mean they’re handing out games for free left and right, their store sucks, their reputation sucks (both among gamers and most devs), of course they’re not making a profit. Their 12% cut is only able to about cover costs because it doesn’t include transaction fees and while I’d like Stream to lower their cut they’re providing a fuckton of service for devs and the health of the wider ecosystem. I’d wish Gabe would finally figure out succession, though, e.g. make Valve a foundation, think Zeiss or Bosch, to make sure it stays bound to statutes instead of finance for eternity.

        • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          They aren’t cheaper in epic, but more money goes to the publishers and developers. It sucks when a game studio you like goes under.

          I’d argue they aren’t profitable because of steam. Everybody uses steam, and most people will wait 6 months to get the epic exclusives after the exclusivity runs out.

          • arc@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            They aren’t cheaper in epic, but more money goes to the publishers and developers. It sucks when a game studio you like goes under.

            I’d argue they aren’t profitable because of steam. Everybody uses steam, and most people will wait 6 months to get the epic exclusives after the exclusivity runs out.

            I guess as a studio it boils down to is would they rather get 70% of 10 million sales or 88% of 1 million sales. They have to make that calculus and also whether they’re going to spend money to make, test, distribute and support multiple builds of the same game to capture as many sales from as many platforms as possible.

            I once made an app for Android that I distributed on Play, Amazon and Blackberry(!) app stores and it soon became a huge pain in the ass. Since the stores have different banner / screenshot requirements, different upload requirements, even different approval procedures that could mean uploads took a week to appear. In the end I just gave up and used Play because it was the largest audience and relatively frictionless.

            • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think the way 2k does it is a good model. They release in epic exclusively for like 6 months, and tben steam and epic after. Idk what the different requirements are for the various game stores, but the build version should be the same for a software that large.

              It’s also the publishers job to handle marketing, so that would fall under their purview rather than the devs at least. With 2k’s model for the ‘lands series, they get the best of both worlds for the most part. The only customers they lose are the ones who are staunchly against using multiple game portals or just really dislike epic for one reason or another.

              For a small developer, I do agree though. It comes down to whether they think a larger audience will benefit them. Sometimes being a large fish in a small pond is better, sometimes not. I won’t pretend I’ve got personal experience marketing and selling a game, but I do believe (and not just because I’m a developer) that the dev companies and publishers should get more of the pie than the platform they are selling on.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    There are monopolistic things about the Play Store, but compared to competing platforms it’s a lot better than most. Android allows you to install apps from outside of the store without any extreme hacks. Contrast that vs iPhone or game consoles.

    But yes, the fact that Google doesn’t want anybody else to have official stores bundled on Android/Play-services supported devices is a huge anticompetitive action. Also, the Play Store does get some premium support from the OS.

    But I’ve used 3rd-party stores in addition to installing direct-downloaded apps and the workflow isn’t bad at all. I just wish you could whitelist a domain when using the browser, so I could say “I only want to download APKs from HumbleBundle.com since their app is gone” without opening up APK installs from all domain names in the browser. Possibly some kind of store-signature system would be better for this instead of controlling by installing app.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Idk what would be a solution for that but in the case of comic readers like tachiyomi their extensions are installed by it and they auto update too

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    This might all become irrelevant in March/April 2024 once the European Digital Markets Act (DMA) kicks in. Apple will have to allow and even enable side-loading on their junk. Both Google and Apple will have to allow third-party payment services and reduce their cut from 30% to (IIRC) 15%.

    But if a court in the US makes the right decision, it might have an additional ripple effect. 🤞

  • Companion1666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Chinese Android phones came bundled with third-party app store. Huawei, after US embargo, still has strong presence in Asia even without Google Play Store. Xiaomi has GetApp, Samsung has, too.

    Apple, on the other hand, would not let you sideload apps.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Technical characteristics like Android making it hard or impossible for third-party app stores to auto-update, as well as restrictive agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers are pretty damning. Google deserves to lose based on that, however,

    their devices sometimes warn that the “file might be harmful” and require settings to be changed to allow “unknown” apps

    Chrome on Windows warns that a .exe download might be harmful. Chrome on Linux warns that a .deb download might be harmful. We have a long history of malware using drive-by downloads or trying to pose as non-executable file types as evidence that these features are in the user’s interests. At most, some rewording of “unknown” sources might be in order.

  • Zink@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not really a monopoly, sadly. Still found it a dick move the first time it warned me that an apk I downloaded wasn’t from play.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      “Monopoly - (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller”

      Certainly a practical monopoly, if not a literal one. I would bet 99.9% of all app installs on android are through the Play Store.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Google Play accounts for well over 90 percent of all downloads onto Android phones in the US, according to state prosecutors

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is difficult to see the case for this compared to Alphabet’s monopolistic hold on searches, and their extremely pervasive power to place ads.