Japan To Crack Down on Apple and Google App Store Monopolies - Slashdot

Posted by msmash

• ›

  by jpatters ( 883 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @12:43PM (#64106739)

  This should apply to game consoles as well, but it probably won't.

  • Re:

    Game consoles are so locked down that it is literally a crime to sell a hacked saved game. Yes, really.

    • Re: Game Consoles

      If I were either Apple or Google, I would pull sales out of those countries. Then I would disable the App Store for the locals. Let them elect new leaders who dont try to put their grubby hands on third party products. If they think they can do it better, let them try

      • Re:

        Are you honestly saying the Japanese, the people who created Nintendo, couldn't create a smaller version with cellular capabilities? Not to mention losing the huge market of Japan.

  • Re: Game Consoles

    That and binaries on operating systems too. I can only run exe files on Windows and it wonâ(TM)t run my ELF files, thatâ(TM)s a monopoly, the Windows App Store should run on my Google Watch.

    • Re:

      Analogy fail. Anyone can make an EXE binary for free and run it on Windows without paying Microsoft anything. The App Store issue is that Apple is actively blocking anyone from being able to make their own App Store on an iOS device.

• Anything can be called a monopoly if one artificially restricts the market definition. I have a monopoly on lawn clippings from my yard. Try to come after me for an anti-trust violation.
  
  >And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.
  
  I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.
  • I don't know about Amazon's app, but I do know this is the reason I can no longer order ebooks through Kindle or Nook easily, because neither platform can support the google system and afford the cut (the authors already get only a percentage after B&N and Amazon take their share). I can't order music on Bandcamp either. So lots of platforms I used to be able to order through stopped working when Google enforced its draconian requirements in the name of a slice of the profit.

  • If you install the Amazon app through the Amazon App Store can you buy a Kindle book?

    Why does Google allow Amazon the keys to install and update apps but F-Droid can't get update permissions?

    Does rooting the phone to allow security updates negate Google's monopoly control of updates? How about on unrootable Verizon phones?

    • Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea

      The only way to buy a Kindle book on an Android phone is through Amazon store on a web browser. Kindle is not available in Amazon app store.

  • Re:

    And tell me what is 'the market definition'? You seem to think one definition you heard at some point is the one everyone should use. This journalist may have meant another one. Generally speaking authorities don't even use the term monopoly. Generally they talk about abuse of market power or a dominant market position. Which Apple and Google have as authorities in the US, Europe and now Japan have judged.

    If you prefer the future of computing to be owned and regulated by two companies that's your prerogativ

    • Re:

      Apple or Google having full control over their storefronts is not a monopoly, anymore than Target deciding what products to carry and what to charge. Or, a closer comparison - having to buy games approved by Microsoft (X-Box), Nintendo, or Sony.
      
      Especially in the case of Google, which freely allows users to install, and download apps from, other stores (Amazon Appstore being a notable example). Neither Apple nor Google hold a monopoly on software distribution - developers are free to create and sell games

      • Re:

        Sorry I asked what your definition is? You answered with 'Google or Apple' are not a monopoly. Well if that is your definition then yes, by your definition Google and Apple are not a monopoly. Great definition mate.

        Let me ask you a another question. If you have a small company and want to build a mobile app for a phones, can you realistically publish it without Google or Apple? If you are a provider of payment systems for applications, could you provide this to app-makers that sell digital products without

        • 1 hidden comment

        • • Re:

            It's not really sophistry to point out the practical problems with "I know it when I see it" [wikipedia.org].

          • Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea

            You are the one playing games of evasion. You willfully refuse to know what words mean, then when called on it you double down on ignorance.

            If your ideas can only exist when you are ignorant then they are bad but every definition.

            Apple absolutely does have a textbook monopoly over delivering apps to iOS devices. Interestingly, Google has no such monopoly involving Android, yet many people want to pretend they are the same. The only way they are the same is that if you use their official app store you must u

            • Re:

              Isn't having to use Google's payment system a monopoly? There are no other choices for the entire ecosystem, despite being able to get apps from other sources.

              Just asking to clarify your position, because from where I sit, that *definitely* puts them squarely in the monopoly seat.

              • Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it me

                You can use other payment systems on Android, but there are restrictions if you deliver your app through the app store. However, Google made changes in Android 12 that make third party app stores first class. Once permission is granted they can do all the same stuff the Google Play store does, such as background updates. Consequently, Google does not have a monopoly on distribution of apps to their devices.

                Their insistence that you use their payment system if you deliver your app through their store might s

            • Re:

              It sounds like a form of illegal tying [wikipedia.org].

        • Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea

          Monopolies are companies where the government grants exclusive market access or benefits a company through subsidies, immunity or other direct or in-kind benefits.

          Pharmaceutical companies, patent trolls etc are examples of true monopolies. Just because you are the only one offering a product or because you are the best at offering a product does not make you a monopoly.

          • Re:

            So are you just describing 'de jure monopolies' or are you saying that according to your definition only government enforced monopolies are monopolies?

  • Re:

    Anti-trust violations do not care if you're a monopoly or not, being a monopoly is not illegal. They care if you have market influence and if you use that market influence to monopolize the market. Your lawn clippings are not important in the grass industry therefore you will struggle to commit and anti-trust violation even if you wanted to.

    Japan isn't doing anything based on a market definition, they are doing something based on market actions.

    Google's billing system only applies to digital goods, not phys

  • Re:

    Amazing, you know more about anti-trust regulation than the lawyers! They should pay you for your intelligence.

  • Re:

    >I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.

    You obviously don't have any clue what is being discussed, so perhaps you should just keep quiet instead of letting everyone know of your ignorance on the subjects at hand.

  • Re:

    Psst - Japan isn't the US and there's no freedom of market embedded in the Japanese Constitution, nor would it matter since the Supreme Court of Japan doesn't have the same powers as the SCOTUS. They can change things basically how they like.

    All of that said, do you note how there's no source for any of the stuff in the article?

• ..from many years ago, when I worked at Disney. The first web browsers had just come out and we all saw the promise of the internet. One executive said.."the only problem with the internet is that we don't own it". The personal computer and internet were invented by people who wanted freedom and control. The corporate weasels hated this, but personal computers and the internet were too hard to exert control over.

  When smartphones were invented, the scumballs finally fount a tool of control, a closed system with zero freedom

  I generally oppose government action to solve problems, but in this case, I would support it

  • 2 hidden comments

  • Re:

    The PC was developed by guys at IBM who wanted in on the emerging micro computer market. They threw together a load of off the shelf components, and then the clone builders reverse engineered their BIOS for profit.

    The internet started as a military project to survive a nuclear war, and only really took off then for-profit ISPs started offering access to it.

    The freedoms that we have arrived largely by accident, and a little bit because businesses hate paying licence fees.

• Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover. They have avoided regulation but they only skim about 3%.

  Google and Apple had lawyers who said "Those guys are amateurs. Do what we do and skim 30%"

  • by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @03:06PM (#64107051)

    They were also are regulated, and capped at 1.15% (debit) / 1.5% (credit) in EU. (The card systems that work at national level in EU charge 0.7-0.9%.) The first thing Visa did after Brexit (the EU cap was gone) was to raise the fees 5 fold. UK now proposes to cap them again again https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] https://www.ft.com/content/41d... [ft.com] (both paywalled, sorry for that).

    The analogy here regarding the abuse of dominant position that Google is accused of would be: Google = Bank of America (in this though experiment, BoA owns 80% of all banks worldwide); Android applications = retailers who have an account at a bank that belongs to same group as BoA. Businesses with an account within our network of banks is forbidden to accept cash, traveler's checks, MasterCard, PayPal, Bitcoin, Apple Pay, and similar offers; all retailers must use only Visa.

    This is what would put Visa in trouble. It does not happen, because every shop is free to accept Visa, MasterCard, Diner's club etc. nobody forces them to refuse some form of payment.

    • Re: They got greedy

      In return the EU Visa system is severely handicapped. Things you have in the US such as card fraud protections simply do not exist, they donâ(TM)t offer true âoecreditâ cards which means that if your credit score decays where they think you become a risk for whatever reason they can simply convert your credit line to debit and collect the money from your bank account without recourse.

      Given Visa has competitors, the fees arenâ(TM)t capricious, they represent a value for a service. MasterC

• Apple's nut needs to be forcibly cracked open, for sure.

  But as hateful and obscene as Google's own stranglehold on most aspects of the mobile ecosystem is, they do allow sideloading and 3rd party app stores on Android. So what does Japan reproach them exactly here?

  • Re:

    Ironically for your comment, traditional anti-trust laws are okay with what Apple does, but not okay with what Google does, given that Google actively makes contracts with third parties that prevent those parties from preloading other app stores on their phone. So far Apple has been cleared of anti-trust violations and Google has been issued a record fine.

    It doesn't matter if you *can* load a 3rd party app store. The question is how easy is it, both for the user and for a company negotiating with mobile pho

    • Re:

      Well, there are many in power who take the view that Apple customers and makers of Apple-compatible software basically willingly put their head in the lion's mouth, and nobody forces them to because they're free to buy an Android cellphone if they're not happy with Apple's private playground.

      That's how you end up with this bizarre idea that Apple is the voluntary captive ecosystem that people choose deliberately (i.e. not a forced sale, ergo not a monopoly) and the onus is on Google, as the maker of the def

• So, they insist on allowing third party app stores(ignoring that Samsung has had its own app store available on Samsung phones), but, will they defend those third party app stores after there is some data breach? Yep, it's all fine and dandy to promote competition, right up until, "you shouldn't blame them when your information is stolen due to poor security".

  • Re:

    O Apple, our God, we beseech you in our fear.
    We are threatened by the evil ones of the earth,
    who have conspired against us and your will.
    They have hacked our devices and our accounts,
    they have spread malware and viruses among us,
    they have corrupted our systems and our data.

    O Apple, our God, have compassion on us, your faithful.
    Protect us from the schemes of the Microsoft and the Linux,
    who have rebelled against your authority and your design.
    Shatter their devices and their networks,
    and shield us from their a

  • Re:

    Samsung is not a "third party" in this circumstance, since they are the hardware vendor. Let this be a good incentive for Apple and Google to harden the OS, though, and improve the sandboxing of userspace apps. I would go further and require that the entire OS be fully open source, it's just too important to get the security right to allow it to be a black box.