Google Faces Fines Over Google Play If It Doesn't Make More Concessions (reuters.com) 21
EU regulators say Google's Play Store changes still don't meet fairness rules and are preparing a potentially hefty 2026 fine unless Google makes deeper concessions. Reuters reports: Google Play has been in the European Commission's crosshairs since March, with regulators singling out technical restrictions preventing app developers from steering users to other channels for cheaper offers. Another issue is the service fee charged by Google for facilitating an app developer's initial acquisition of a new customer via Google Play which the regulator said goes beyond what is justified.
Tweaks to Google Play announced in August to make it easier for app developers to direct customers to other channels and choose a fee model are still falling short, the people said, with the EU antitrust regulator viewing Apple's recent changes to its App Store as a benchmark. [...] Google can still offer to make more changes before regulators impose a fine, likely in the first quarter of the next year, the people said, adding that the timing of any sanction can still change. "We continue to work closely with the European Commission in its ongoing investigation but have serious concerns that further changes would put Android and Play users at risk of malware, scams and data theft. Unlike iOS, Android is already open by design," a Google spokesperson said.
Tweaks to Google Play announced in August to make it easier for app developers to direct customers to other channels and choose a fee model are still falling short, the people said, with the EU antitrust regulator viewing Apple's recent changes to its App Store as a benchmark. [...] Google can still offer to make more changes before regulators impose a fine, likely in the first quarter of the next year, the people said, adding that the timing of any sanction can still change. "We continue to work closely with the European Commission in its ongoing investigation but have serious concerns that further changes would put Android and Play users at risk of malware, scams and data theft. Unlike iOS, Android is already open by design," a Google spokesperson said.
Real problem is criminal motivations (Score:2)
Fairness is a weak sauce problem. Much larger problem is incentives in favor of criminals. How many Android apps are really trustworthy? "Fairness" for crooks doesn't help.
I'm increasingly convinced it's a waste of time to speculate about solutions, but I still think a "business model" tab could help a little bit. Most of the time the developer would just select from the main options, and in most of those cases the google could say yay or nay without revealing too many details. Of course there also needs to
Re: (Score:3)
Scammers are not going to write "scam" as their business model, they can always write "currently capturing users at a loss, we'll later launch a paid offer based on a freemium model". I don't think google should have any business saying yes or no if they're not auditing the code. It really isn't fair if they just refuse apps based on justifications that amount to "I don't like you".
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be a fairly typical response these days. No, your interpretation is not what I wrote or intended and you didn't ask for any clarification or help in understanding my poor writing. I also think your writing is not of the best, but my sadly too typical response is to discount your opinion. Or perhaps I should react defensively and try to explain what I was trying to say?
However I suspect you have some axe to grind (as do I) and therefore there is no reason for me to make so much effort--and the discu
Re: (Score:2)
My writing was not the best. I should have separated better the different topics I wanted to address. I personally follow the comments on mine for a a week or so, even when the discussion itself has died out. So if you care, you still can clarify what you think wasn't clear in yours. I thought your arguments as clear, just I don't agree on one point:
I still think a "business model" tab could help a little bit.
I wrote it wouldn't help, because normal companies as well as scammers can lie about it and you have no way to tell they lied. Feel free to start from here and
Re: (Score:2)
Addressed in my other reply on the branch that started out more politely. But the short summary is that most of the honest businesses are basically using tested business models and in those cases the google is usually in a privileged position to confirm the general conformance to the claim.
I've actually written about this topic in the past, but my pie-in-the-sky vision is a two part tab that wannabe downloaders could look at. The top part would be the claims of the developer. Perhaps going beyond the money
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a huge difference between a criminal organization and a multinational corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
> Is there a huge difference between a criminal organization and a multinational corporation?
Yes, huge difference.
The common-law criminals running corporations get statutory protection from liability for the crimes they commit under corporate letterhead.
A regular mafia has individual liability.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing, but I would still prefer to seek solutions.
Most of the time the paths to legitimate profitability are well known. Those paths can be presented as options from a list. In those cases where the google is involved in handling the money, then the google is also in a position to say more about what is going on. I specified that there should be room for "other", but pushing the developers to clarify their plans will at least make it easier for potential downloaders of the app to have a more i
Re: (Score:2)
I agree discussing solutions would be preferable. But there can be catharsis in complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
These years I'm losing faith in the value of catharsis. So what even if it makes someone feel better? Too many crucial decisions are being made by selfish a-holes for stupid shortsighted reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Those apps should get fast-tracked because they offer nothing 'dangerous'.
An app that is free and has no ads or in-app purchases has one of two incentives: completely harmless fun OR the financial incentive is hidden and it is a scam. These are the hardest two to differentiate unless you personally know the developer. A dangerous app probably doesn't need in-app purchases or advertising. But it can also look like a game.
Open for now (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not an argument they will be able to make once they block sideloading.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an argument that is relevant. The "you can still do X" isn't a defence when antitrust is about forcing developers to do Y, especially when X is demonstrably free of any potential customers or market share.
Sideloading hasn't ever been a proper defence for them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an argument they will be able to make once they block sideloading.
Except that they aren't blocking sideloading. With the planned changes you can still install apps via:
1. Other app stores. The apps will have to be signed by a registered developer account.
2. By one-click installation from a web site. The apps will have to be signed by a registered developer account.
3. By ADB. No registered developer account required.
And for the cases that require a registered developer account, that account can be anonymous and free as long as the number of installs is small.
Re: (Score:2)
Perverse incentives. The FCC more or less tries to mandate locked bootloaders because of the wireless transmit capabilities. The firmware could be locked on just the radio chip itself, but companies can stretch the truth a bit. And then Qualcomm has closed source drivers so if you stray too far from the original OS the driver just won't run. The vendors effectively work together to make the lockdown a secondary requirement for their mutual financial benefit.
I don't know the exact technical details so I m
GDPR (Score:2, Interesting)
There's absolutely no reason for google to require you to have a google account and register your phone with them just so you can install packages from the playstore.
Re: (Score:2)