Google's appeal of the Epic ruling asks 'Why not Apple?'

08 Oct 2024, 17:15 by Chris Thomas · Android Police

Key Takeaways

A US federal jury found Google liable for anticompetitive behavior in limiting third-party app distribution, prompting a court order mandating open standards for Android app stores.
In response, Google argues that Apple's closed ecosystem faces no similar legal challenges, though Apple's proprietary model differs from Android's open framework.
Critics argue that Google’s policies stifle competition despite Android's perceived openness, whereas Apple’s restrictive ground-up approach prevents the need for anticompetitive practices

Following a four-year legal battle, a US federal jury has handed down a unanimous verdict finding Google liable for anticompetitive behavior in its moves to marginalize third-party app distribution. After Judge James Donato issued a wide-ranging injunction requiring Google to implement open standards for third-party app stores, the multinational tech conglomerate responded on its official blog (via Google) to the tune of, "If Apple can do it, why can't we?"

I'm taking back control of my Play Store experience by turning off this feature

You should, too, if you dislike targeted ads

Google's three main points of contention

Contextual reasoning or whataboutism? You be the judge

Posted under the authority of Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google Vice President of Regulatory affairs, the blog post posits three potential flaws in the court's reasoning, all of which revolve around Apple, a party not involved in the lawsuit in question.

Firstly, it points out that "Apple and Google compete directly for consumers," framing the two vendors as equal entities fighting for market share. Some parts of Google's diverse business efforts do directly combat Apple. But this appears to overlook Apple's focus on proprietary, vertically integrated systems like what make up Apple's App Store and overall ecosystem.

Secondly, Google acknowledges direct competition between it and Apple for app developers. Google's claim again holds objective merit. However, its supporting logic could undermine its argument: "The decision ignores what every developer in the world knows — they have to prioritize investing in developing for iPhones and Androids." While true, this discounts that "every developer in the world knows," also, that Apple's walled garden requires adherence to strict rules for App Store acceptance. The Google Play Store demands fewer such accommodations, and supplies a more fragmented user base.

The Play Store's recent changes are like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

Yay, more ads for things I don't want or need

Finally, Google's assertion that "Android is open and Google Play is not the only way to get apps" may underscore why it actually lost the lawsuit. In theory, Google's Play Store framework allows for choice in an open market. However, as evidence-based speculation suggests courtesy of Tim Sweeney, Epic CEO, internal communications indicate Google executives' explicit attempts to marginalize that freedom and give special treatment to first-party app distribution and payment tools.

Only the courts can decide the relevance of Google leveraging Apple's win in its appeal. Public response is mixed, but industry figures including Android expert Mishaal Rahman have begun weighing in. As Rahman explained, Android's open nature led Google to enact distribution policies to curtail competition within its own market — the definition of anticompetitive. By comparison, "Because Apple never allowed third-party app stores in the first place, there was never a market of alternative iOS app stores for them to compete in," which precludes Apple from relying on anticompetitive measures to maintain dominance.

As an ongoing story, we will continue to provide updates on what will likely become an even more protracted dispute.

All I want from Epic is a great Android game store

Google clearly isn't up to the job