Why is the Google play store a monopoly if you can sideload apps, but the Apple store isn’t one although you can’t sideload apps? I’m not pro-Google, I’m just trying to understand.
Ok, I’m going to preface this by saying I don’t agree with the ethics of this, because I’ve been shot for just being the messenger in the past when I’ve spoken about this. That somehow by explaining the situation it means I’m siding with Google or Apple. I am not.
But it’s because the case and the judge aren’t ruling on it from a Google > smartphone user POV (where Apple’s store is objectively even more of a monopoly than the Play Store, in that you literally have to use it).
They’re looking at it from a Google > phone OEM POV. Google effectively forces companies to use the play store, otherwise they can’t access Android functionality that has been shifted to play services, they don’t get to upstream patches to AOSP, they can’t access Google Apps (which are effectively required if you want to have people buy your device), they don’t even have access to Android’s notification system API. Google enforces that OEMs don’t have alternative app stores set as the default. Etc.
Apple has no such equivalent. They aren’t forcing anything on OEMs, because they themselves are the OEM. If the only phones with a Play Store were Google’s own Pixel phones, the ruling would’ve went like Apple’s.
The case is about Google abusing their market position to push OEMs into using the Play Store. Not end users.
Everybody who talks about this case on Reddit/Lemmy seems to miss what it’s actually about. It’s (unfortunately) not about protecting end users directly.
Thanks for this summary, I haven’t followed this and didn’t know what it was about. Sensical format and structure, extremely helpful in explaining a crucial difference
Because they make deals with manufacturers to ensure only google play is loaded on, and that the bootloader is locked so custom ROMs can’t be easily installed. If they decline, they lose the right to ship w/ google play, and therefore piss of the average user.
Not just a coincidence that the only flagship devices on the market with an unlockable bootloader are made by Google. If you want to use android without them in a secure manner, you’re going to have to pay them for it.
Google has a stranglehold over theirs, and everyone else’s who isn’t either Google or built to serve a sanctioned (by the U.S.) foreign market like China or Russia.
Except samsung ships with their own store on all galaxy devices, even if play is there too. So it doesn’t fit with a stranglehold.
If google withdrew android to only Google hardware, does that suddenly make them not infringing anymore? Leaving all other phone devs to make their own OS…
This makes a lot more sense, and was the information I was missing. Thank you. As others have pointed out though, last I knew Samsung shipped with their own store
Can’t answer your question as I’m also trying to understand but recently Graphene OS has been in the news.
Basically there are apps that won’t work if they have not been authenticated by one of Google’s APIs. Which means there are apps that won’t work if it did not come from the play store.
Yeah, It’s a bit more complicated than that though. The service your referring to is called Google App Service (sometimes just called App Services) and is required for certain functions. Mostly to do with API calls to Google servers, so it makes sense that they would need to be verified. It ain’t as anti-competitive as it first sounds, it’s actually very reasonable.
There are also some apps that have versions that don’t need Google App Services in order to run, they use alternate open source solutions. The version designed to run on Google’s app store requires Google App Services, the other versions don’t. The problem comes if people try and sideload the wrong version.
If the app does not require App Services then it doesn’t matter what platform it’s installed from.
I’m going one step further, it’s not just Google app services that is the problem. What they’re catching fire for currently is the Google Integrity api, as Google is refusing to whitelist third-party ROMs onto the API which means that secure apps such as banking apps will use that API are not able to be run on third party custom roms. Their argument is since they can’t validate the security of the ROMs they refuse to integrate them, however there are a few projects including graphene OS that has done everything that they can to keep it a secure minimalistic environment but because it’s not Google they won’t whitelist it. It’s definitly anti-competitive.
Oh yeah I understand, but the trouble is it’s not a totally unreasonable argument from their point of view. They are been asked to essentially put their seal of approval on something they have no real control over.
Perhaps the solution is to have some sort of agreement where any compromises that result from third-party ROMs, are not Google’s responsibility and are they should be legally protected. I’m sure that the lawyers are the main reason for this position by Google.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25047547/236883_Epic_Vs_Google_B_CVirginia.jpg)
Why is the Google play store a monopoly if you can sideload apps, but the Apple store isn’t one although you can’t sideload apps? I’m not pro-Google, I’m just trying to understand.
Ok, I’m going to preface this by saying I don’t agree with the ethics of this, because I’ve been shot for just being the messenger in the past when I’ve spoken about this. That somehow by explaining the situation it means I’m siding with Google or Apple. I am not.
But it’s because the case and the judge aren’t ruling on it from a Google > smartphone user POV (where Apple’s store is objectively even more of a monopoly than the Play Store, in that you literally have to use it).
They’re looking at it from a Google > phone OEM POV. Google effectively forces companies to use the play store, otherwise they can’t access Android functionality that has been shifted to play services, they don’t get to upstream patches to AOSP, they can’t access Google Apps (which are effectively required if you want to have people buy your device), they don’t even have access to Android’s notification system API. Google enforces that OEMs don’t have alternative app stores set as the default. Etc.
Apple has no such equivalent. They aren’t forcing anything on OEMs, because they themselves are the OEM. If the only phones with a Play Store were Google’s own Pixel phones, the ruling would’ve went like Apple’s.
The case is about Google abusing their market position to push OEMs into using the Play Store. Not end users.
Everybody who talks about this case on Reddit/Lemmy seems to miss what it’s actually about. It’s (unfortunately) not about protecting end users directly.
Thanks for this summary, I haven’t followed this and didn’t know what it was about. Sensical format and structure, extremely helpful in explaining a crucial difference
That makes sense, thanks
Just to add, there are multiple app stores available for Android devices. I hate Google, but this seems like an odd attack at first glance
Because they make deals with manufacturers to ensure only google play is loaded on, and that the bootloader is locked so custom ROMs can’t be easily installed. If they decline, they lose the right to ship w/ google play, and therefore piss of the average user.
Not just a coincidence that the only flagship devices on the market with an unlockable bootloader are made by Google. If you want to use android without them in a secure manner, you’re going to have to pay them for it.
But that doesn’t speak towards the Apple side, which locks their app store and hardware as well.
Apple has stranglehold over their devices.
Google has a stranglehold over theirs, and everyone else’s who isn’t either Google or built to serve a sanctioned (by the U.S.) foreign market like China or Russia.
Except samsung ships with their own store on all galaxy devices, even if play is there too. So it doesn’t fit with a stranglehold.
If google withdrew android to only Google hardware, does that suddenly make them not infringing anymore? Leaving all other phone devs to make their own OS…
My OnePlus 7 Pro came with an unlockable bootloader. Or was that deal after that phone came out?
This makes a lot more sense, and was the information I was missing. Thank you. As others have pointed out though, last I knew Samsung shipped with their own store
I think there’s some leeway given for manufacturer owned appstores, especially for the big boys.
That being said its mostly controlled opposition IMO.
Yup, I use F-Droid for most of my apps, and Aurora as an anonymous FE to the Play store. I also have a couple apps sideloaded.
Can’t answer your question as I’m also trying to understand but recently Graphene OS has been in the news.
Basically there are apps that won’t work if they have not been authenticated by one of Google’s APIs. Which means there are apps that won’t work if it did not come from the play store.
Yeah, It’s a bit more complicated than that though. The service your referring to is called Google App Service (sometimes just called App Services) and is required for certain functions. Mostly to do with API calls to Google servers, so it makes sense that they would need to be verified. It ain’t as anti-competitive as it first sounds, it’s actually very reasonable.
There are also some apps that have versions that don’t need Google App Services in order to run, they use alternate open source solutions. The version designed to run on Google’s app store requires Google App Services, the other versions don’t. The problem comes if people try and sideload the wrong version.
If the app does not require App Services then it doesn’t matter what platform it’s installed from.
I’m going one step further, it’s not just Google app services that is the problem. What they’re catching fire for currently is the Google Integrity api, as Google is refusing to whitelist third-party ROMs onto the API which means that secure apps such as banking apps will use that API are not able to be run on third party custom roms. Their argument is since they can’t validate the security of the ROMs they refuse to integrate them, however there are a few projects including graphene OS that has done everything that they can to keep it a secure minimalistic environment but because it’s not Google they won’t whitelist it. It’s definitly anti-competitive.
Oh yeah I understand, but the trouble is it’s not a totally unreasonable argument from their point of view. They are been asked to essentially put their seal of approval on something they have no real control over.
Perhaps the solution is to have some sort of agreement where any compromises that result from third-party ROMs, are not Google’s responsibility and are they should be legally protected. I’m sure that the lawyers are the main reason for this position by Google.