Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the injunction

  • Google must allow third‑party app stores to:
    • Be distributed via Google Play.
    • Auto‑update apps.
    • Access the Play Store catalog and broker installs, with devs allowed to opt out.
  • Google must:
    • Stop requiring Play Billing for apps on Play.
    • Let apps link to external payments and external downloads.
    • Let devs set prices independent of Play Billing.
    • Stop paying or incentivizing exclusivity / “first run” on Play, or paying to avoid rival stores.

How “open” Android really is

  • Many note Android already allows sideloading and alternative stores (F‑Droid, Amazon, Samsung), unlike iOS.
  • Others argue this “openness” is hampered by:
    • Scary warnings and friction for sideloading.
    • Earlier limits on unattended updates for non‑Play stores (improved from Android 12).
    • OEM contracts that prioritized Google Play and discouraged competing stores.
    • Dependence on proprietary Play Services and SafetyNet‑style checks.

Google vs Apple discrepancy

  • Strong sentiment that it’s odd Google is hit harder despite iOS being more locked down and having higher US share.
  • Explanations discussed:
    • Different trials: Google had a jury, Apple a bench trial.
    • Different market definitions and facts (Android licensed to OEMs, iOS vertically integrated).
    • Apple’s long‑standing closed model vs Google creating an ostensibly “open” ecosystem then using anti‑competitive contracts.
  • Some expect or hope future cases or regulation will eventually force Apple to open up too; others are pessimistic.

Developers, many stores, and complexity

  • Concerns:
    • Managing many stores, contracts, revenue shares, and payment systems.
    • Possible fragmentation: big apps going store‑exclusive, users juggling multiple stores and update paths.
  • Counter‑view: this is exactly how competition should work; PCs and game platforms already live with multiple stores, and competition can cut fees and improve terms.

User freedom vs safety

  • One camp: phones are general‑purpose computers; users should be able to run any code and choose stores, accepting risk.
  • Other camp: tight curation and single‑store simplicity significantly protect average users from malware, scams, and support nightmares; warnings and constraints are justified.
  • Some suggest “developer/techie modes” or tiers of control as a compromise.

Epic’s role and motives

  • Broad agreement Epic is not altruistic; it also uses exclusivity and bundling (e.g., engine + store deals).
  • Nonetheless, many see Epic’s lawsuits as having achieved more practical opening of platforms than regulators so far and are willing to accept self‑interested motives if the result is more competition.