Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store.
It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is the arbiter of android and anything but extremely anti competitive
What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
Consider how many of those items apply to Google's behavior and how many apply to Apple's.
That Apple is the only way to get the hardware or software for their products (compare to getting Google software licensed on Samsung) is a very important distinction.
I personally don't think the distinction you point out should actually be important at all. The end result is an anti-competitive platform, and that's all that should matter.
If we go by the oft-used test of consumer harm, consumers get harmed in exactly the same way on both platforms, with higher prices (due to percentage fees that you can't opt out of) than if the market were more open.
I have no idea if iOS or Android is better (or maybe if iOS is actually worse on some basic level, but they can rely on the single store to reach parity).
But, their justification is at least plausible. Do I think they actually telling the truth? I think it at least is a case of financially motivated reasoning. But they haven’t completely given it away.
Google has by being willing to open up as long as some financial requirements are met.
Google is anticompetitive because they allowed users to install third party apps, but paid big players not to develop app stores.
But if they had just done what Apple does, and just ban third party installs all together, that'd be what? Hyper competitive and fair?
It absolutely pains me to see Google essentially punished for having the only phone platform that allows users to install their own apps.
Sure was nice of you to jump in with your own. I guess it just wasnt wild enough without your own luke warm mental gymnastics.
I kinda get how it plays out that way in a legal sense, but it still baffles me that so many people can simultaneously support this ruling against Google and continue to praise Apple's practices. Cognitive dissonance (and the Jobsian RDF) is a thing.
They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.
They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware.
But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.
You are clearly missing the point on purpose. Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple and you had to pay 30% of the cost of your goods to Apple for the privilege of transporting them.
This would be OK, because you'll still be able to walk or maybe even use rail transport.
Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). You HAVE to support iOS, or you'll go out of business. No alternatives.
Ultimately if you're a sizeable company that wants to operate in the US, and a mobile app is something you need to offer, you have to build one for iOS. If you don't, you'll fail.
I would say these days you aren't going to do quite as well if you don't also build an Android app, but you can probably get away with it in quite a few markets if you really didn't want to.
Heh, I remember when Instagram was iOS-only, and that was the case for... at least a year? More?
If you go this route, not all roads would have belonged to Apple. People would use Apple's roads because they're well built, the majority of cars are nice ones and drivers drive well because enforcement is harsh. Maintenance is usually done on schedule and if people want hassle free travel, it's the best choice even if they're boring and uniform.
There exists other roads for every (start, destination) pairs. But only the new ones are maintained. Drivers do whatever they want and even enforcement wants to stop at every turn. Sometimes you're not even sure what exactly are alongside you on the road.
Here you come trying to create a taxi service (But you did not build any road yourself) and both companies ask you for the same fee. But you know you can probably get your cars on Google's road and bypass the fee with some hassle. But Apple's won't let you do that. People has paid a high fee to get access to these road and they don't want random cars on it. But you know these people has money and you want some of it.
I could go on and on with this.
> Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games).
If you're a business, why would you care for 30%? Apple is providing the whole SDK for free, and your users' platform is getting updates for free. You are not doing any of that. the 99$ yearly fee is peanut.
If you're building things for yourself, Apple has never advertise that iOS was something to tinker with.
Yes, some backwoods roads would belong to Android. Maybe around 30%.
> If you're a business, why would you care for 30%?
Because it's a lot. Apple is triple-dipping:
1. You have to pay for Apple computers.
2. You have to pay for the SDKs.
3. You have to give the MAFIA shakedown 30%.
There are good manufacturers for Android. But they're still unmatched in terms of services. In the above analogy, nice road, worse travel experience.
> Because it's a lot.
It's the cost of doing business with Apple, made clear to you since you begin. You just factor it in your offering.
> 1. You have to pay for Apple computers.
Because it's the tool for the job. No ones expect you to build a Windows App without a computer running Windows. The tools Apple provides only run on MacOS which only runs on Macs.
> 2. You have to pay for the SDKs
You don't. You're paying only for access to the distribution channel (base fee).
> You have to give the MAFIA shakedown 30%
Remember the tools and services above? If you're making business with Apple customers through Apple services, you're paying for it on a transaction basis.
Again, it doesn't matter if roads are nice. Or if your mafia thugs give you a handkerchief after they beat you bloody.
> It's the cost of doing business with Apple, made clear to you since you begin. You just factor it in your offering.
Just like mafia.
> No ones expect you to build a Windows App without a computer running Windows.
Can I buy macOS to run on my PC? No?
> You don't. You're paying only for access to the distribution channel (base fee).
Since you mentioned Windows, I can compile and distribute as many Windows applications as I want. Without paying a cent to MS.
> Remember the tools and services above? If you're making business with Apple customers through Apple services, you're paying for it on a transaction basis.
Again, like with mafia. But now on iPhone!
After all, without their generous service, you wouldn't be able to earn money. Right? What's that puny 30% of your income to you? It's really nothing!
Got it.
Building a mobile app SDK and an app store is very much asking a lot of people to develop apps for them.
Certainly the definition of "success" differs depending on who you ask, but if we're talking about a player like Epic, they absolutely have to sell their app on the Apple app store. They absolutely should also sell on the Google Play Store, but it's still table stakes (at least in the US) to have an iOS app.
Apple on the other hand has tried very hard to make sure such perceptions of markets do not exist; for instance, the requirements they gave to Microsoft for shipping a game subscription service on iOS is that the games themselves had to be in Apple's App Store, pass App Store review, and take payments for DLC or currency via in-app purchase.
This is also IMO why Apple will never actually lock down macOS so that things are only available in the Mac App Store. Whether or not it is a good idea, they can't defend it legally.
I'm not sure why this should matter, though. I don't see why it's somehow better to use technical means to refuse to allow there to be a competitive market, than to use shady business deals to ensure a competitive market doesn't grow.