Google settles lawsuit with US app developers for $90 million
- ?
- Anonymous
- 4Iy
- 02 Jul 2022
Kangal, 02 Jul 2022iOS was built from the ground-up completely by Apple. The O... moreI just want to clarify that everything Apple is, is built on top of the darwin unix code they stole.
- Kangal
- Hqa
- 02 Jul 2022
Anonymous, 01 Jul 2022I'm confuse.
Why Apple can get away with 30%, but Goo... moreiOS was built from the ground-up completely by Apple. The OS is closed-source and they have a cohesive ecosystem. You cannot opt-out from paying their 30% cut. Developers there are indeed a captive audience. That's the main reason. Google does NOT have a captive audience. You CAN choose to use alternatives to Google, and give a different % to different company.
.............
Now here is the long-version / history:
Google was a "nobody" when it came to mobile phones in 2005. The dominant form was Symbian from Nokia, then you had certain niches for the likes of Blackberry, Palm, and Microsoft PDA.
Apple shook the industry in 2007 with the original iPhone (2G). Most established players did not change their stance. Blackberry was doing the same thing. Microsoft barely did anything with Windows Mobile 6, which was using their very outdated WindowsCE software. Nokia decided to "try" to compete against the iPhone but their solution was half-baked and simply sucked (resistive screen, low RAM, slow processor, small battery, clunky UI). While in the background there were open-source projects in the background like MeeGo and FirefoxOS. It was actually Palm who revolutionised the industry with the Palm Pre. So you can see how much competition there was in this space!
Meanwhile, Google was secretly working to get into the mobile phone market. They recently acquired a new startup company in California, and were designing a "Blackberry-like" phone competitor. With the iPhone announcement, Google stopped everything, and changed directions to make an "iPhone-like" phone. That company itself was Android.
Now the best way for Google (or Android) to have a chance, would be for them to use as many available tools as possible. This means the Linux kernel and Javascript language, so that they can design something quickly and Programs made for them are "universal". One of the peculiarities of this, was they had to abide by the GPLv2 laws. So the Main Branch of the Operating System was publicly made Open-Source (aka AOSP). While this could be a downside, Google did a brilliant business move and adopted this trait. They created The O.H.A (Open Handset Alliance) where Google would be in-charge and develop AndroidOS for FREE to any OEM who wants to sign up. And they would get access to Google Search, Chrome browser, Maps, YouTube, Gmail, and Google Talk services. It would be a collaborative deal, where chipset vendors and OEMs can contribute to the code. And these OEMs no longer had to invest tens-millions into the software directly. A win-win situation. However there were some conditions for the OEMs (ie No Forks, etc etc).
And it worked! Google's AndroidOS shot up in popularity, as an alternative to the iPhone. Whilst all other projects and ecosystems languished or exploded. However, this quick spike in marketshare meant the AndroidOS ecosystem had to be open, both to alternate AppStores, Sideloading, Open-Source, but to also possible Forks from companies who chose to take AOSP without first signing on as an OHA member (Amazon FireTablets, Huawei's HongMeng, Alibaba, etc etc).
- ?
- Anonymous
- XUv
- 01 Jul 2022
Kangal, 01 Jul 2022Microsoft is missing out, and it's billions. They coul... moreI'm confuse.
Why Apple can get away with 30%, but Google can't?
How's that fair?
How's that even possible?
- A
- Akss
- 7k0
- 01 Jul 2022
Developer Distribution Agreement will be updated to make it clear that devs are allowed to contact users directly and not just through the app (e.g. through email).
Why this rule?
- Kangal
- wwR
- 01 Jul 2022
Microsoft is missing out, and it's billions. They could have announced a Flat-10% charge back when they had a chance in the market, to gain developers to their ecosystem. But they didn't do that, because it would dilute the subscription model (ahem Profit Margins). It was greed. They rather get nothing from lucrative market, than get something from humble market.
Apple's business model relies on that 30%-cut. They are bribing (i mean "lobbying") as many politicians they can, to keep this going on as long as possible. They are completely against change when it comes to this topic. No App Sideloading!
Google could lower this to a Flat-10%, and many consumers and developers would prefer this. It is easier to calculate, understand, and seems fair. However, they have a captive market for the most part. As long as Apple is working hard at bribing, they also want to capitalise and make as much Profit Margin as possible. However, they are the biggest at risk with courts turning against them, and third-party App Markets possibly becoming mainstream in the future.
- S
- SShock
- M}3
- 01 Jul 2022
MRSTEK, 01 Jul 2022Support FOSS movement, use F-droid.F-droid is so puritan about being open source that it's just useless. But at least stuff on it is suppose to be verified clean. Which can't be said for basically all 3rd party app stores that are riddled with modified apps and straight up fake apps that pretend to be something they are not.