I don't yet see any discussion here on the effective difference between the assumed conclusion of this news, so I'll add this:
How do you expect the difference between Google and Facebook's internal ecosystems, and even their competitive stance (or lack thereof) with Apple, would affect the decision to revoke the enterprise certs?
Hypothetically, if Apple proceeded to revoke Google's enterprise certs on the same basis, wouldn't it have significantly less effect on Google's day-to-day operations? Certainly there large teams of iOS developers working on iOS apps, but I would expect (with no basis but idle speculation) that most other Google employees outside those teams are on Android and it would simply cause issues with Google's ability to develop apps on a competing platform.
If this is correct, then couldn't this act be interpreted as more of an anti-competitive move? I'm curious others' thoughts on this aspect of the recent sequence of news.
I saw this claim elsewhere in this thread as well, but I didn't really get it. Google is going be affected equally by iOS changes. Google does control the Android/Chrome ecosystem, but I don't see how Google could make any changes there that hurt Facebook because of antitrust concerns.
The difference is that Apple are controlling what software individuals can run on their own phones that they paid good money for.
The problem isn't that Apple are allowed to throw Google out of the enterprise program; the problem is that Apple users aren't allowed to install Google's apps without Apple's permission.
It's fair enough to say that Google can't complain because they knew the terms of the enterprise agreement. But I'm not sure it's fair to say that Apple phone purchasers are clearly told when they buy a phone that Apple can disable their employer's internal apps.
There are substantially different facts that are both public knowledge and in the record.
The iPhone operating system has always been an integral part of the Apple developed iPhone product-line.
Compare and contrast this with Android which was from the start billed as an open platform that carriers and OEMs could do with as they liked. However, there are two substantial business activities that Google has engaged in outside of developing and maintaining the AOSP and also maintaining their own line of Android software:
1) they contractually required OEMs to include all of a set of key apps they developed for use on Android, giving privileged positions to some of them and requiring that OEMs not fork Android in order to continue to have access to Google’s Play Services.
2) And here’s the money shot: when 3rd party developers such as Epic and according to Tim Sweeney in an interview that was also on The Verge, Activision, were developing their own App Stores, Google made the rounds paying them off to not do so. Epic received the offer, but didn’t take the deal. To go one step further, Google also made the rounds to game developers to keep them from listing in Epic’s store as well.
Why does Android have a, as framed by the questionnaire the members of the Jury filled out and answered yes to this question on, a defined market area in and I quote “Android app distribution, worldwide excluding China” but the iPhone does not? Because that is how Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability.
For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. I don’t have a lot of respect for the position that antitrust law is even applicable anywhere within the phone hardware and software market in the US. Either way, this was a substantively different record and a different set of allegations leading to a different outcome.
Oh and on this:
> And no, it's not just 4
In substance it’s just 4. 5 and 6 are things the Judge would have also had as criteria to make a judgement on. What’s different about point 6 is that he could have kept his thoughts to himself rather than pointing this out to a Jury. In the end, whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call. Trying to predict the judgement call different people will make might be possible if you become an expert in that person, but even then they might surprise you.
Like with any working class professionals—Doctors, Accountants, Consultants, PR Agents—you can take any two of them from the same profession, give them a set of facts and desirable outcomes and end up with two completely different opinions. Legal strategy does involve knowing your audience to some degree, but both legal teams went in knowing it was and preparing for a Jury trial. If Google had any disadvantages, it wasn’t solely from this being a Jury trial in a Jury pool they helped to select.
That just seems anti-competitory. I wouldn't expect Apple to reject google on the pretext of working with facebook, and I think it would be even more ridiculous for google to actually remove a currently existing app of a competitor.
Is that relevant here? I think the issue at hand is how Google leverages the app store to exert control over smartphone companies. The comparison to Apple doesn't make sense. Apple is the only company selling phones running iOS.
The fact that Google does more work on it would tend to weaken the point. Also, the fact that Google is using Apple's software tends to undermine the Team A vs Team B regime that's the premise of most of these discussions.
I'm still trying to reconcile Apple's victory over Epic with Google's loss to them. To an outside observer it seems obvious that Apple is a far worse offender in monopolizing app distribution on their platform, yet somehow they're the ones who managed to pull a victory in court.
It appears that part of it is a bit of a technicality—Apple never allowed a market for app distribution on their platform at all, while Google did. So, technically, Google is abusing their competition while Apple simply doesn't have any. There's a certain kind of logic to that argument, but it feels like it establishes perverse incentives for a platform to retain 100% control. It's legal precedence for "give them an inch; they'll take a mile"—not only will they try to take the mile, they're legally entitled to.
I also suspect that the other side of it has to be that Google is simply far less competent at managing its legal position than Apple is. Google is constantly getting into trouble in these cases for deleting data they shouldn't have and similar offenses. Apple, meanwhile, doesn't seem to retain any more incriminating data than Google does, but they somehow simultaneously manage to avoid getting in trouble for their data retention policies.
The difference is that Apple has enacted many policies that limit developers while Google has, to my knowledge, never done anything of the sort. In fact, it seems like they go out of their way to be fair to developers (for instance: every app they built for Android uses only the APIs that are available to everyone).
Edit: My point is that Google has never shown an inclination towards policies like these, and I think it's reasonable to expect that not to change.
One thing I wish the piece touched on is the way that these platforms have evolved into anti-competitive environments due to a kind of vertical integration.
Google doesn't just control the operating system or the OEMs. Their agreements with OEMs benefit their own applications over the competition's, effectively allowing Google to leverage its power as a platform to benefit its apps developed for its platform. We've seen the exact same dynamic play out with Amazon and its products. It's only this year that Apple has allowed third party apps to serve as replacements for its default web browser and other apps on iOS. This particular kind of anticompetitive behavior definitely meets the standard of negatively affecting consumers because of the extent to which it intentionally limits the end-user's ability to choose the competition.
I doubt it. You and I are both going to get heavily downvoted for this by the devout Apple fanatics, but it's unreasonable that Google is held to a much higher standard than Apple.
Google gives away the OS for free (speech and beer), allows competition on the devices, but requires bundling of its app with its store (which has competitors).
Apple not only bundles the apps, it explicitly locks out competitors with code, forbids competitors in their agreements with customers and developers, and IIRC forbids developers who write for its platform to also put the same app on any competing app store (which again are forbidden by contract and locked out with code).
> Develop for iOS. Apple has humans who answer phones and create support tickets and escalate issues and follow up and respond.
Is this true? Because if it is, my next phone will be an iPhone and I will completely move into the Apple ecosystem and develop for publishing in the App Store instead of Google Play Store.
Even though I don't do anything bad, these kind of news do have me absolutely scared that it's simply not worth it. It's beyond ridiculous how Google is treating developers. At least be precise in the cause of the termination, explain exactly what has happened.
You are correct. That certainly will not happen immediately, and not as a direct result of that action.
However, it could theoretically result in employees preferring to work for Google instead of Apple. And employees at Google being happier. And happier employees doing better work. And then Android eventually being significantly better than iOS. And then consumers switching.
Whether that chain of logic pans out in reality, I can't say.
I don't see any way to even ask the question sensibly about iOS.
Google supplies an OS (Android) to non-Google phone makers, and Google supplies applications to non-Google phone makers. The potential antitrust issue is if Google is using its position as an OS supplier to other companies to influence those other companies to also choose Google for applications.
Apple supplies neither an OS nor applications to non-Apple phone makers. There is no third party that Apple is using iOS to influence toward choosing Apple applications.
You're right, thanks, I had thought it was the other way around.
That's a slightly different narrative to what I had in my head, but I'm not sure it matters a lot, since it's basically Apple & Google not being able to agree on what to do resulting in a split.
In your first sentence, there are two statements. The first is true. I see this as an important step that Google had missed, yet Apple had working (for some value of working) from day one.
The second is unlikely to be true for a very long time, if ever, and is merely wishful thinking. It would equally be wishful thinking if someone thought that enterprises would specify iOS only or SailFish only.
Apple have always been very clear that they don't like being beholden to anyone when it comes to core products.
Google ran the risk of finding themselves in precisely that position with the advent of mobile devices.
As much as I'd rather Apple and Google - two of the most exciting companies out there - were getting on, I don't think anything Google is doing is that different to what Apple would do were the situation reversed.
reply