Alphabet, States Reach $700 Million Deal in Google Play Feud 20
Alphabet will pay $700 million and alter its Google Play policies to settle claims that the app store unlawfully dominates the Android mobile applications market, resolving antitrust complaints brought by attorneys general of about three dozen states and consumers. From a report: The deal disclosed in a court filing late Monday calls for tweaks to Google Play policies designed to reduce barriers to competition in the markets for app distribution and payment processing. The lawsuits that were grouped together in federal court in California had threatened billions of dollars in revenue generated by the sale and distribution of apps through Google Play. Google will also make a series of changes to its business practices as part of the settlement. In a blog post, the Android-maker said: Streamlining sideloading while prioritizing security: Unlike on iOS, Android users have the option to sideload apps, meaning they can download directly from a developer's website without going through an app store like Google Play. While we maintain it is critical to our safety efforts to inform users that sideloading on mobile could come with unique risks, as part of our settlement we will be further simplifying the sideloading process and updating the language that informs users about these potential risks of downloading apps directly from the web for the first time.
Expanding user choice billing to more people: App and game developers will be able to implement an alternative billing option alongside Google Play's billing system for their U.S. users who can then choose which option to use when making in-app purchases. We have been piloting user choice billing in the U.S. for over a year and will now expand this option further.
Expanding open communication on pricing: We have always given developers more ways to interact with their customers than iOS and other operating systems. For example, Google Play allows developers to communicate freely with their customers outside the app about subscription offers or lower-cost options available on a rival app store or the developer's website. This openness has spurred competition and benefited consumers and developers. As part of user choice billing, which we're expanding with today's settlement announcement, developers are also able to show different pricing options within the app when a user makes a digital purchase.
Expanding user choice billing to more people: App and game developers will be able to implement an alternative billing option alongside Google Play's billing system for their U.S. users who can then choose which option to use when making in-app purchases. We have been piloting user choice billing in the U.S. for over a year and will now expand this option further.
Expanding open communication on pricing: We have always given developers more ways to interact with their customers than iOS and other operating systems. For example, Google Play allows developers to communicate freely with their customers outside the app about subscription offers or lower-cost options available on a rival app store or the developer's website. This openness has spurred competition and benefited consumers and developers. As part of user choice billing, which we're expanding with today's settlement announcement, developers are also able to show different pricing options within the app when a user makes a digital purchase.
...But Apple's monopoly continues... (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, Google Bad...
iOS is only available to one hardware vendor, doesn't allow easy side loading, and only one "app" store.
Apple Good....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do like the "Expanding open communication on pricing" point, provided that it means what I think it means: that Google won't restrict devs from charging less on alternative platforms in the way that Steam does, for example. (Does Google do this now? I don't know.)
That is already the case. What they're doing is allowing the dev to display, inside the app, the pricing on other platforms for digital purchases. Think "songs" bought via an app. You may have installed Someones Music Player 2.0 from the Google Play Store, but when you go to buy some music via the app, it can show different prices depending on where you buy the song (ex. from the developers site, from a 3rd party music store, or via the app store).
That's a pretty big change. One of the vocal critics of Goog
Re: (Score:3)
then everyone would offer their app for $0 dollars on the Play Store, and have in-app purchasing to "unlock" the real features of the app via 3rd party billing
Only if Google's billing is not competitive with 3rd party billing (and right now it isn't). That's the whole point of all of this, to force Google to compete and not rely on their monopoly. And if they're not willing to compete then yes, we want everyone to be using third party billing.
Re: (Score:2)
if that wasn't the case, then everyone would offer their app for $0 dollars on the Play Store, and have in-app purchasing to "unlock" the real features of the app via 3rd party billing, completely cutting Google out of any chance at recouping the cost of the Play Store service. IE: it would be abused.
That's not abuse. It is cheap for Google to distribute apps. They have the infrastructure there already. People tend to forget that this is why Google was one of the first cloud providers, they have capacity going to waste and they dream up new ways to use it constantly. Having users know they can get apps for their devices means they are more likely to purchase them in the first place. They can pay for it with licensing fees for Play Services and customizations for vendors.
I don't make in-app purchases on
Re: (Score:2)
... with less than one sentence. Now, back to Google and its perfidious evil ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that Apple's monopoly needs to be dealt with, Google's support for "multiple app stores" only applies to phone manufacturers. If you are Epic Games, and you don't actually make phones, you can't just set up an app store for Android. And even if you side-load it, you get scary security warnings every time you install an app from such a third-party app store.
Re: (Score:3)
The handwriting is on the wall for Apple too. Now that the precedent is set, and the EU is plowing into this, it's a matter of time before Apple caves. They won't go without a fight though. If there's one thing Apple loves, it's high profit margins.
Re: (Score:1)
As others have pointed out, Android is open to many hardware vendors and allows side loading and multiple "app" stores...
Apparently, Google Bad...
Saying there is one cost before agreeing to a contract, then adding in additional costs after the agreement, is fraud.
It isn't bad, it's just illegal.
iOS is only available to one hardware vendor, doesn't allow easy side loading, and only one "app" store.
Apple Good....
Apple has not committed this form of fraud.
They had a shitty deal for you before you signed, and it remained the same shitty deal after you signed it.
That isn't good, but it isn't illegal.
I know people here very much hate the idea that more than one crime is happening by more than one company.
But apple is breaking completely different laws than google is.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the issue.
Apple is their own stuff. It's like asking to buy a Ford F-150 with a Chevy engine. Or buying a Tesla with an ICE.
Apple provides the hardware, software and app store. They don't provide it to anyone else.
Google provides the so
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple is their own stuff. It's like asking to buy a Ford F-150 with a Chevy engine. Or buying a Tesla with an ICE."
Except of course, that you can do that, and its completely legal...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/... [thedrive.com]
And that's the rub -- Tesla shouldn't have to sell me a car with a ICE in it, but they sure as shit shouldn't be able tell anyone they can't do what they want after they buy one.
The idea that Apples not doing anything wrong because apple told you upfront that you aren't allowed to do anything to
sideloading on should not trip any DRM flags or lo (Score:2)
side loading on should not trip any DRM flags or any other app lockouts.
say an backing app can't not work just due to having side loading on
Streamline sideloading while prioritizing security (Score:1)
Meaning Google will now forcibly "vet" the stuff I sideload explicitely because I want nothing to do with Google.
This just handed a new monopolizing power to Google. Great... :(
Someone's got to pay for Europe's pensioners (Score:1)
US tech firms seem like a good target...
I THINK I'm joking ;)
Re:Someone's got to pay for Europe's pensioners (Score:4, Interesting)
EU companies get fined all the time by US regulatory authorities. And that's a good thing. Same as it's a good thing if Microsoft, Google, Apple or any other company gets fined for monopolistic practices. Of course 99% of the time in the EU it's an EU company getting fined and you won't read it in US news. Both in EU and US these are very serious organizations that carefully check against abuse of market power. As consumers we really stand to win if the power of these corporations stays in check
How about making it easy to get root? (Score:3)
F-Droid? (Score:2)
Will F-Droid be able to do updates without root?