this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
341 points (96.7% liked)

Android

27947 readers
205 users here now

DROID DOES

Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules


1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.


2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.


3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.


4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.


5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.


6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.


7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.


8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.


Community Resources:


We are Android girls*,

In our Lemmy.world.

The back is plastic,

It's fantastic.

*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.


Our Partner Communities:

!android@lemmy.ml


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand, this is bullshit because Apple won their case? Do you mean the Apple case was bullshit?

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Right. Apple is even more restricted but somehow won their case. Makes it all seem like bullshit.

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The judge in their case decided that the relevant market was mobile gaming, not app stores or in-app payment processing, and since technically Apple didn't have a monopoly there, the whole monopoly claim by Epic was deemed invalid by that judge. Courts can be stupidly black & white sometimes but that's how it is and a whole case can be tossed out based on a technicality. Google v Epic however was a jury trial and Epic obviously took lessons from their loss against Apple.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There's a reason you have organizations like the NLRB, meant to be the "first step" before a labor case goes to a more general trial -- it lets a bunch of people who are actual subject matter experts (in the NLRB's case, labor law experts) be the first pass at reviewing the legal claims before a general court that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about gets involved. It lets you set the tone for the whole ensuing trial process, grounded in understanding and truth.

The average judge doesn't know jack shit about ANYTHING other than the technicalities of the law. Most of them haven't done a real day of work in their life. But being a judge gives you the confidence you need to think your understanding of the technicalities of the law can be applied to just about anything, even something you find utterly baffling outside of the trial.

We really lack a qualified commission or board to be the first pass for these big tech disputes. The FTC is asleep at the wheel. And the result is that our ongoing legal frameworks around these issues continue to be arbitrary, unpredictable court rulings based on random judges' limited understandings and gut instincts. It's a very bad situation.

In a similar vein, that's why the fascists on the Supreme Court are trying so hard to undermine and delete Chevron deference. Because when you want to use the courts to just enforce your preferences and write your own laws, having to appeal to subject matter experts just gets in the way.

[–] tjhart85@kbin.social 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

On Android you can install unapproved apps and even entire app stores. The barrier to having people install your app is a couple of taps (approximately as difficult as it'd be on Windows when you've got to approve UAC a time or two).

So, it is kind of ridiculous in comparison that they lost but Apple with an entire walled of ecosystem that you can't bypass without finding a zero day exploit won their case.

With that said, I know a lot of people who only buy Apple BECAUSE of that walled off ecosystem and conversely I know people that primarily buy Android for their relatively open system, so I'm in the minority where I think neither Google nor Apple should have to change in this particular regard. Both companies suck, but charging the same price they always have for their app store isn't the issue I'd fight them over.

[–] 520@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The barrier to having people install your app is a couple of taps

Not entirely true. Google has a history of making it as difficult as possible for other app stores to run without outright locking them out as possible.

[–] d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Citation needed. I just tried installing the Epic store on my Samsung and it was literally a couple of taps, not even an actual warning - just a friendly dialog box asking me to allow my browser to install apps and that's it.

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Used to be much, much worse. They used to force you to go find a setting called something like 'allow apps from outside the Play Store' and tick it, show you warning screens, then when you tried to install an app from it, it would take you out of the store to say 'do you want to install this from an untrusted location?'

Edit: and that's before we get onto the subject of Play Protect, which is used to wipe applications from phones that are contrary to Google's interests but not actual malware.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Google is a monopoly. Apple in many ways, is also a monopoly. They are lamenting that the latter was not acknowledged.

[–] tux@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Definitely a case of "good, now go do apple again". The mobile marketplaces being locked down and tied to services is bullcrap. If I want a run of the mill open source android OS and to be able to use Gmail (or drive, or some other Google product ) I should not have to allow Google full access to the knowledge of every app I run and the screen time and my location information... Etc, etc.

But I do think the apple win on a technicality will be revisited at some point.

And to be clear, I freaking do not like Epic. But this fight they're on the side I agree with. Open up the mobile platforms.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Google is a monopoly.

Web search, sure. Online video, sure. Mobile operating systems in the US specifically? Uhh, no.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Its a 70:30 split between Android and Apple. So you have a choice between Apple's walled garden and Google's... ecosystem. Best case scenario its a duopoly.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Best case scenario its a duopoly.

Sure but OEMs of Android phones can still ship app stores competing with Google Play. That what Samsung (the biggest Android vendor) does with Galaxy Store.