- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
You must log in or register to comment.
Great! Now do Apple
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.
At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the “you can’t buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut” which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc
Yeah, the Kindle app pretty blatantly tells you why they removed in-app purchases.
In the US it does.
Yeah but they also have more rights than the consumer, rather than the other way about lol
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
They have a 99% market share on iPhone though. Google has less on Android.
…in the US
Why? Just don’t buy apple.
Exactly. The locked down nature is part of the Apple experience, this is what their customers are paying for
The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn’t it?
It’s not an apples to apples comparable situation. Pun intended!
And consoles.
I don’t understand. Android already allows other apps and app stores to be installed, and Epic already has an Android app store you can download and install without issue. What was the argument here?
I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.
I wonder how that’s going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.
Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.
Unless Apple also has secret deals
Apple doesn’t need to make any deals at all because you simply can’t install any other app stores, or any apps outside of the Apple app store.
That’s the crazy thing, that they lost their case and Apple won, despite Apple having WAY more control.
Apple wouldn’t need to have secret deals. They’re running a walled garden over there. You can’t side load, and you can’t run payments through the app without Apple’s approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn’t a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.
The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don’t have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not “theirs”, even if they’ve increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time.
The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don’t approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device).
But they can’t outright control anything.
Which is where the deals come in. They’re making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.
It’s anti-competitive, because to spite Google’s efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn’t.
I’m sure they do want them to do that, the question is how is Google stopping them?
So even if you download, purchase and install an app via a separate app store, Google still collects a commission!?
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can’t even be on the play store. So for an ordinary user you feel like you are hacking the phone. So naturally there aren’t many alternatives. The only one that lasted is F-Droid, but it seems to be only used by advanced users who want to run open source software.
So simply, theoretically they should be able to do whatever they want practically everyone has to stick to play store.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them (and they of course charge 30%). This probably would still be ok, but then certain vendors don’t need to follow the same rules.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can’t even be on the play store.
Yes you can, and I have several times. You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them
But we’re not talking about Play Store…
But we’re not talking about Play Store…
Epic is, in the law suite they just won.
So the issue is that they don’t want to pay commission on in-app purchases after people download their app from the Google Play store?
I believe that is the crux of it. And apparently part of the trial exposed that some big players have special deals such that don’t have to pay those in-app purchase commissions, or at least have a smaller commission. And that’s what makes it an abuse of their market position.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
OP is mistaken - you can make purchases in side-loaded apps, only thing is that app can’t use the Google Play APIs for that (obviously) - but they’re free to use PayPal or stripe or w/e payment method. Google has no way of preventing sideloaded apps from doing that, and it’s not like they can ban them either.
You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows.
Actually, there isn’t even any actual “warning” - at least not on my Fold 4 - there was just one dialog to enable installation from unknown sources, with a “Settings” button that takes you directly to the page where you need to tick the box next to your browser, and as soon as you tick the box, you can click on the “Install” button to install it. That’s it. None of the dialogs you interact with has any actual warnings.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
That’s not true - they wouldn’t be able to use the Google Play APIs for payments of course, but if the app is sideloaded they can definitely use any payment processor / method. If the app isn’t on the Play Store then Google has no say over it.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings
It’s really not as difficult as you make it seem.
- Send a link to the user somehow (SMS, email etc); or user goes to the website
- Click on the Download button
- Open the APK
- In the dialog box that pops up, click on the Settings button > then allow Samsung Internet
- Click on the Install button
That’s it. There were no “series of warnings” to go thru, no need to flip between multiple screens or anything. I literally just went thru this process to install the Epic store my Galaxy Fold 4 - which took only a few seconds in total - and it was in no way complicated or “scary” at all. And bear in mind that the audience in this case are gamers - people who are already familiar with the concept of downloading and installing programs on a PC, so it’s not like you’re targeting some tech-illiterate people here.
The only one that lasted is F-Droid
Not true again. Aurora Droid and Droid-ify are both reasonably popular, at least in the OSS/enthusiast communities. Yes they use the F-Droid repos but they also subscribe to other repos (Guardian Project, Izzy etc), so you’re getting your apps from multiple sources.
There are also proprietary stores such as Aptoide which are quite popular in the Asian markets. Finally, you’re completely ignoring other stores which are bundled out-of-the-box on many non-Google phones such as the Galaxy Store on Samsungs, Mi Store on Xiaomis, AppGallery on Huawei etc. Of course, in the western market the Play Store is the most dominant, but the Samsung store is reasonably popular among Samsung users (as they have regular deals on games and various other apps + some exclusives like Good Lock and other Samsung-specific apps), and of course, the OEM stores are also quite popular in Asian markets.
No I think Google tried to tell Epic they couldn’t have their own processing for in-app purchases. That’s what Epic sued over.
There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.
Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.
Why would they sue Google instead of just saying “nah”? Did Google do something to prevent them from having their own in-app purchases from their own app store?
Google and Apple both banned Fortnite from their respective app stores and that’s what caused Epic to sue both of them in the first place.
It’s more that Epic added their own payment system to the app (and offered, IIRC, a roughly 30% decrease in Vbucks price for people who opted to use it instead), Google and Apple both responded by removing the app, and then Epic sued them both and even aired a special presentation in Fortnite. All in the same day. Epic intentionally did this.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
I read that but they don’t expand at all on how they’re doing that. I can buy, download and install games from EGS right now on my Android phone…
I can also buy things from Amazon or any other online store from my browser without Google Play.
They obviously aren’t forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That’s what’s getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing.
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
The Galaxy store app on my phone says otherwise.
What’s in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don’t include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store?
Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can’t really tell if it’s monopoly or not.
What’s in the contract between Google and Samsung?
Samsung uses Google’s OS (or a fork of it anyway). One of the conditions in the ToS of using that for commercial purposes is that you have to have a certain number of Google apps and services installed and not removable.
Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?
Are those all on the phone by default?
Edit: I didn’t ask if some of them are installed by default, I asked if ALL of them are installed by default.
I can’t speak for the others, but the Samsung Galaxy Store does come pre-installed. However, Google paid Samsung for the Play Store to be the default action for app installs. So you get both stores and can pick which one you want.
The Samsung galaxy store comes pre-installed on Samsung phones, I haven’t heard of it being pre-installed on non-samsung phones.
They are on their perspective devices. ie: Galaxy Store on Samsung, Mi store on Xiaomi, etc.
But they’re only default on their respective devices right?
As a reminder, this is the comment you replied to:
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
As a reminder that was in fact not the comment I replied to.
Yes, depending on where you buy them from. My Samsung came with Galaxy store by default.
On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google’s Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university’s online studies.
Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it’ll let you use it.
But that won’t necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn’t need to change how their apps function because of this.
I really hope you’r wrong on that. Anyways, it’s a pleasure to see Google bleeding.
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
They’re not disallowed on the Play Store. They just choose not to put them there specifically because they don’t want to pay Google 30%.
But that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing 3rd party app stores. Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers, since no one has vetted whether it is malicious (not that the app stores are immune from malicious apps) so I don’t see that as an issue. I would see mandating the removal of those warnings as an issue.
The Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores.
“4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.” - Google Play Developer Distribution AgreementComputers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers
I think “Computers” go back way farther than you’re imagining. There was a time when you didn’t even install software on computers. You just put in a disk and ran what was on it. We don’t even need to go back to when “Computer” was an actual job title. Something that humans (mostly women) did.
The Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores.
…huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
I think “Computers” go back way farther than you’re imagining.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
…huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
To make it easy to access other app stores of course. You can use one web browser to download another can’t you.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
Maybe too simply, because I really don’t. Windows didn’t give any warnings about installing any programs until Windows 10 I think. And even then it’s only the truly esoteric and unknown to Microsoft.
This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.
Unlike Apple, Google allows people to download apps onto phones running its Android operating system without going through its official app store, but the company strikes deals with phone manufacturers to favor Google’s official app store.
So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.
Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??
The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.
looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html
It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.
Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.
No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work’s security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify’s in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic’s approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there’s a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Droidify with adb or Shizuku can already do that. But it needs Android 12+. Then it can do unattended updates.
Problem is, ADB requires enabling developer mode, and guess what - my company also blocks access to devices with developer mode on! (Also, the fact that Shizuku doesn’t work correctly over mobile because it requires stable Wi-Fi to fake a wireless debug connection doesn’t help matters.)
Shizuku only requires WiFi once per boot. But it also needs ADB, so it sadly won’t work for your company phone.
I think the Session Installer mode allows updates without a dialog for apps already installed by Droidify without dev mode or adb.
Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That’s why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
True. Tencent sucks
Didn’t Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Edit: for future reference, Verge answers this very question here https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
EDIT: Added source from where I read it.
From some other comment I read,it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google’s stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:
The “this doesn’t make sense” crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store… but we can can all guess how well that would have went… not well. So the open source route makes sense.
Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn’t control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn’t comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That’s appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.
If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they’d have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn’t do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I’m not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn’t be a surprise.
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can’t find it anymore.
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn’t seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
The thing here is that you don’t have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don’t even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I’m sure Huawei isn’t using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while “designed to keep apps down”, is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn’t offered that deal they’re still free to make deals with other app stores.
Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you’re unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple’s billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.
I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I’m not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they’ve specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn’t and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?
Google made back room deals with other development firms to help suppress the use of other app stores.
That’s the issue here. The collusion aspect.
It’s very different than Apple.
* Allegedly.
What exactly is evidence that Google has suppressed other stores, and in what manner ? If you consider say, Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo etc - all have their own stores in parallel to the Play Store. And on all/other phones, you’re free sideload any third-party app store.
Taking my Samsung phone as an example, I don’t see the Play Store being promoted any more prominently than the Galaxy Store, nor do I see any blockers for using the Galaxy Store. I believe this is the same for other OEMs as well who bundle their own stores.
So tell me, where exactly is the suppression here?
While I agree, it seems like antitrust lawsuits gain a lot more ground if the defendant was paying people to switch from competitors which is what got Google here.
i hope this one also smashes Apple’s business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
I’m not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that…
It’s not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.
I run e/OS, I don’t have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.
Epic won this case against google…
Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.
I’m not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that’s BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.
Seriously this is crazy. Apple somehow winning is way worse as there is simply no way to install third party apps on IOS. Android makes the risks clear but it’s still at least possible if you click install anyway.
In terms of being a monopoly, in the US ios has more market share anyway. Google’s lawyers must have really made some big mistake.
Both lawsuits are going into round 2, afaik.
While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it’s worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.
The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively “smart”. Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier’s store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.
Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.
Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon’s tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.
That said I do think it’s a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,
Yup. I was part of Verizon’s app development program and it was a fucking joke. Even if the dev tools and build chain wasn’t a complete mess, and even if the dev license wasn’t expensive, and even if it wasn’t almost impossible to even get test hardware… Even if you managed to build something more useful than snake, you’d still have to wait months and months and months for Verizon to sign your apps and then months more before they’d be available on any handset. I’m legitimately not sure it was even possible for a small dev to get anything approved.
Open app stores were and still are amazing. I get that people want even more freedom, but coming from the trauma of feature phone development, I find it hard to get upset about this, especially considering Android makes it dead simple to sideload.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don’t think so
Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.
Well thats just mean for no particular reason.
Well thats just mean for no particular reason.
Your comment was a nonsensical history lesson, and didn’t serve the current conversation of the topic being discussed.
Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.
Agree. Smells like a ChatGPT flavored comment.
A little more tact could bring your comments a long way, my friend.
Nah, call them as you see them. No need to F around when it comes to people polluting the Internet.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
I don’t think so
Sure smells like it.
Nobody was asking for a history lesson of the past that doesn’t draw any real conclusion to the current situation, at the end of the comment.
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
So now Google will be forced to… allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
I imagine Epic doesn’t really care about that so much as not giving Google 30% of in-game purchases in Fortnite.
But they wouldn’t have to use Google’s IAP service if they distributed Fortnite as a self-updating apk on their website.
Maybe, but that’s not where the vast majority of people look for apks and part of the lawsuit where Epic says they have a monopoly.
Google isn’t being forced to do anything. The judge specifically stated they’re not doing injunctions or anything. If Epic has another problem, “you can come back.”
Now, that’s still a ruling, and a ruling helps dissuade Google from doing certain things, but there’s not likely to be anything “forced” here.
I’m confused how this is a win for consumers, it just seems like two companies arguing over who gets to rake in more money.
That’s how I feel about it too . Can someone explain why I should care ?
They accidentally make rules that work for little guys also.
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn’t Google’s app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple’s system which won.
I’m willing to bet that the judge and/or jury isn’t well versed in either business or technology and made a ruling based on ignorance and confusion.
