36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622

"The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."

Am 08.07.21 um 02:51 schrieb NewsKrawler:
> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>
> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."

No value again by posting a link as human gateway. Your considerations
and your opinion would have been of interest.

The fact is out more than 24h in all radio and tv stations and on the net.

Please stop redundant traffic.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> schrieb NewsKrawler:

>> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app
>> store
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-all
>> eged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>>
>> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
>> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust
>> violations."
>
> No value again by posting a link as human gateway. Your considerations
> and your opinion would have been of interest.

Could be worse. At least it provided some information. If you want to get
on to somebody for posting links with no comment, try
(rec.arts.movies.past-films). Be my guest...

> The fact is out more than 24h in all radio and tv stations and on the
> net.
>
> Please stop redundant traffic.

If I'm deciphering your post correctly...

Disagree. I don't listen to radio or watch TV. I'm on the Internet all
day, but this is the first time I've heard about that specific lawsuit.

I have heard about some very interesting lawsuits against big tech
companies. Like using the "public accommodation" argument. Being a
frequent listener to court oral argument, I can't wait!

NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:

> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>
> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."

Well, each of those "major app developers who want the benefits of
Google Play without paying for it" could run their own online app store.
They'd effectively isolate their app to a dismally puny audience.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 08.07.21 um 02:51 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>>
>> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
>> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."
>
> No value again by posting a link as human gateway. Your considerations
> and your opinion would have been of interest.
>
> The fact is out more than 24h in all radio and tv stations and on the net.
>
> Please stop redundant traffic.

He isn't here to voice an opinion or to help. He's dumping his
newsfreed here as though the audience here was incapable of noting this
news on their own.

Am 08.07.21 um 17:25 schrieb VanguardLH:
> He isn't here to voice an opinion or to help. He's dumping his
> newsfreed here as though the audience here was incapable of noting this
> news on their own.

You are right: Stupid and braindead Trolls unfortunately never die out.

VanguardLH wrote on 08.07.2021 17:24
> Well, each of those "major app developers who want the benefits of
> Google Play without paying for it" could run their own online app store.
> They'd effectively isolate their app to a dismally puny audience.

Thanks for that point of view on the Android news of topical interest.

I didn't follow up on the lawsuits (there are three of them concurrently I
think) but I think it's all about anti trust, which has to be proved.

The complications are in the legal details, I'm sure, which I, for one,
don't claim to be fully aware of, but I don't think it's just as simple as
you portrayed it above (but maybe it is?).

For example, the Apple legal situation, as I understand it, is completely
different than the Android legal situation, as I understand it, even as both
are about anti trust in the main.

In the case of Apple, for example, there is _only_ the Apple app store for
consumer iOS devices, & worse, an Apple login is _required_ to use the Apple
App store (whereas a personal logic is not needed to access Google Play).

Also, in the case of Google Play apps, a few which we're all aware of, are
kicked off _because_ they violate Google's rules (e.g., NewPipe), while even
more are forced to put less functional apps in the Google Play store which
then themselves point to a more functional app elsewhere (e.g., NetGuard).

In summary, I think the legal situation is pretty complex, so if anyone here
knows it better than I do, please do edify us as to what the lawsuits are
about, since it's useful, always, to learn about our legal system.
--
On Usenet, people discuss topics of temporal interest and add value for all.

On 7/7/2021 5:51 PM, NewsKrawler wrote:
> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>
> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."

Hmm, since there are many other app stores distributing Android apps,
how is Google engaging in antitrust violations. Any app developer is
free to distribute their apps through another app store, or directly to
the end user.

In comp.mobile.android, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, since there are many other app stores distributing Android apps,
> how is Google engaging in antitrust violations. Any app developer is
> free to distribute their apps through another app store, or directly to
> the end user.

The lawsuit claims that Google has been working to "preemptively quash"
other app stores, not claiming that Google has successfully obtained a
complete monopoly.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20985134-utah-v-google-complaint-redacted

Starting line 16 on page 9:

Google promised repeatedly that Android would be the basis for an
'open' ecosystem in which industry participants could freely
compete[...] Google has not kept its word. Instead, Google has
taken steps to close the ecosystem from competition and insert
itself as the middleman between app developers and consumers.
[...] To collect and maintain this extravagant commission, Google
has employed anticompetitive tactics to diminish and disincentivize
competition in Android app distrinution. Google has not only
targeted potentially competing app stores, but has also ensured
that app
[page break]
developers themselves have no reasonable choice but to distribute
their apps through the Google Play Store.

This part, also on page 10, is the bit that really bothers me:

Android is the only viable operating system available to license by
mobile manufacturers that market and sell their devices to US
consumbers. The barriers to entry in the licensab;le mobile
operating system market are high, and even highly resourced
entrants, such as
[page break]
Microsoft and Amazon, have failed.

Yes! I want more competition in this space. Android is, for now, the
lessor of the two evils under my calculus, because I can use things
like F-Droid and install a compiler on my phone. (Apple for some reason
thinks a Unix shell with a Unix tools on a phone is a threat.)

Elijah
------
"No competing Android app store has more than 5% of the market."

On 7/8/2021 6:28 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> Google has
> taken steps to close the ecosystem from competition and insert
> itself as the middleman between app developers and consumers.

Would you consider the new apk to aab rules another step in this direction?
--
Ken Hart
kwhart1@frontier.com

In comp.mobile.android, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/2021 6:28 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Google has
>> taken steps to close the ecosystem from competition and insert
>> itself as the middleman between app developers and consumers.

Techically I did not write that. I quoted a court filing.

> Would you consider the new apk to aab rules another step in this direction?

I know very little about that, just what I've read in this group. It
sure sounds like it. That has _not_ been included in this lawsuit
though. Cut and paste from PDFs is shitty, so forgive the formatting
on this next bit (starts on page 13, I've added line breaks for each
numbered paragraph start):

18. This Complaint focuses on five
categories of anticompetitive conduct through which Google has
obstructed competition in Android app distribution and in-app
purchases. Google has no legitimate justification for any of this
conduct.
19. First, Google creates and imposes broad practical,
technological, and contractual impediments to effectively close the
Android app distribution ecosystem.
[page break]
consumers from directly downloading and installing apps
or app stores that might compete with the Google Play Store by, among
other things, (a) imposing needlessly broad restrictions on direct
downloading of apps and app stores, which Google calls "sideloading";
(b) using contracts with Android device manufacturers to prevent the
manufacturers from modifying the operating system to circumvent the
sideloading or code restrictions imposed by Google; (c) blocking
competing app stores from distribution on the Play Store; and (d)
preventing non-Play app stores and apps from purchasing advertising on
key Google properties including YouTube and the Google search engine
results page.
20. Second, Google disincentivizes and discourages
competition from the only market participants that could otherwise
avoid the technological restrictions and be well-positioned to compete
in app distribution--Android device manufacturers and mobile network
operators. Google recognized these competitive threats and sought to
eliminate them through a carrot-and- stick approach. The carrot is
revenue share agreements that Google provides Android device
manufacturers and mobile network operators--sharing Google's monopoly
rents and, thereby, disincentivizing or restricting them from
attempting to create or foster a competing app store. The sticks are
contracts that require Android device manufacturers to preload Google
Play Store on the default home screen, render it undeletable from the
device, and ensure that no other preloaded app store has a more
prominent placement than the Google Play Store.
21. Third, Google has
focused its anticompetitive strategies on Samsung, the largest
manufacturer of Android devices sold in the United States. Google has
taken the extraordinary step of attempting to buy off Samsung to limit
competition from the Samsung Galaxy app store by, among other things,
offering incentives for Samsung to turn the Galaxy store into a mere
"white label" for the Google Play Store--meaning that Samsung would use
the backend services of the Google Play Store, including Google Play
Billing, while retaining its Samsung Galaxy Store branding.
22. Fourth,
Google launched incentive programs to share monopoly profits with large
app developers that might be capable of disrupting Google's app
distribution monopoly. Google
[page break]
did so to prevent these large app developers from
fostering their own app store or moving en masse to a competing app
store like Samsung's.
23. Fifth, Google mandates that consumers who
download apps from the Google Play Store also use Google Play Billing
for all in-app purchases. This unlawful tie effectively precludes an
Android app consumer from purchasing additional digital content
directly from the app developer or via the app developer's chosen
payment processing service; Google forces the consumer to continue
doing business with it and to indefinitely pay Google's
supracompetitive commissions.
24. In a more competitive environment,
Google's app distribution monopoly could be disrupted. Instead, because
of Google's exclusionary conduct, even Amazon, one of the biggest and
most sophisticated content distributors, has tried but failed to create
a competitive Android app store that could weaken Google's app
distribution monopoly through free and fair competition.
25. In the
absence of Google's unlawful tying conduct--requiring essentially all
Android app customers to use Google Play Billing for in-app purchases
of digital content--there would be vigorous competition in the Android
in-app payment processing market, as exists in other payment processing
markets. Google uses its durable monopoly power in the Android in- app
payment processing market to extract a supracompetitive 30% commission
from consumers--a figure over ten times greater than what other payment
processors charge for purchases of non-digital goods through Android
apps or for digital and non-digital goods on the internet.

Paragraph 19 part (d) sounds very clear cut anti-competitive behaviour.
On that complaint I feel certain Google will lose.

Elijah
------
"not even probably monopolistic Amazon can do it" is a damning claim

On 7/8/2021 11:28 AM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, since there are many other app stores distributing Android apps,
>> how is Google engaging in antitrust violations. Any app developer is
>> free to distribute their apps through another app store, or directly to
>> the end user.
>
> The lawsuit claims that Google has been working to "preemptively quash"
> other app stores, not claiming that Google has successfully obtained a
> complete monopoly.

Well in China there is no Google Play Store available, all the Android
apps are distributed by a plethora of other app stores. Even in the U.S.
you have other app stores. But I guess it is true that Google doesn't
make it easy, requiring side-loading of apps from the other app stores.

<snip>

> "No competing Android app store has more than 5% of the market."

Not in the U.S. anyway, <https://www.appinchina.co/market/app-stores/>.

In article <eli$2107081428@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

>
> Yes! I want more competition in this space. Android is, for now, the
> lessor of the two evils under my calculus, because I can use things
> like F-Droid and install a compiler on my phone.

you're actually going to write apps on a phone??

> (Apple for some reason
> thinks a Unix shell with a Unix tools on a phone is a threat.)

no they don't.

it's not a particularly useful thing to have, but it's not prohibited.

In article <eli$2107081514@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> > Would you consider the new apk to aab rules another step in this direction?
>
> I know very little about that, just what I've read in this group. It
> sure sounds like it. That has _not_ been included in this lawsuit
> though. Cut and paste from PDFs is shitty,

no it isn't.

the only time it's a problem is if the pdf is a collection of scanned
images with ocr, which usually contains ocr errors that don't always
line up with the underlying text, so when copying, you may not get what
you think you're getting. that's a problem with scanning and ocr, not
pdf itself.

the complaint pdf is not that. it's ordinary text with some embedded
images, the same as many document formats and also web sites.

copy/paste results in plain text that wraps to fit, to which i added
line breaks and indentations for usenet.

<https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20985134/utah-v-google-complaint-
redacted.pdf>

19. First, Google creates and imposes broad practical, technological,
and contractual impediments to effectively close the Android app
distribution ecosystem. Google deters consumers from directly
downloading and installing apps or app stores that might compete
with the Google Play Store by, among other things, (a) imposing
needlessly broad restrictions on direct downloading of apps and
app stores, which Google calls ³sideloading²; (b) using contracts
with Android device manufacturers to prevent the manufacturers
from modifying the operating system to circumvent the sideloading
or code restrictions imposed by Google; (c) blocking competing
app stores from distribution on the Play Store; and (d) preventing
non-Play app stores and apps from purchasing advertising on key
Google properties including YouTube and the Google search engine
results page.

> Paragraph 19 part (d) sounds very clear cut anti-competitive behaviour.

it does not.

(d) preventing non-Play app stores and apps from purchasing
advertising on key Google properties including YouTube and
the Google search engine results page.

google is not required to do business with another company if it
doesn't want to.

> On that complaint I feel certain Google will lose.

that remains to be seen.

it looks like a bunch of lawmakers who don't understand tech trying to
apply outdated laws.

In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> Yes! I want more competition in this space. Android is, for now, the
>> lessor of the two evils under my calculus, because I can use things
>> like F-Droid and install a compiler on my phone.
> you're actually going to write apps on a phone??

What is an "app"? I write and run programs (non-GUI) things on my phone.
I compile and run other programs (non-GUI) on my phone. Not being able
to do even basic programming was a very frustrating thing when I was
still on feature phones.

>> (Apple for some reason
>> thinks a Unix shell with a Unix tools on a phone is a threat.)
> no they don't.
>
> it's not a particularly useful thing to have, but it's not prohibited.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
2.5 Software Requirements

2.5.2 Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not
read or write data outside the designated container area, nor may
they download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes
features or functionality of the app, including other apps.
Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to
test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code
provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps
must make the source code provided by the app completely viewable and
editable by the user.

A Unix shell needs to be able to `git clone FOO && cd FOO && make install`
or it's just a toy. Personal communication with Apple employees plus
observed behavior elsewhere tells me Apple is not going to let that
happen. They don't let non-Apple web browsers run, things like IOS
Firefox are built around Apple components.

Even Android is moving towards making that difficult by removing
execute permissions from the parts of the filesystem that apps can write
to. (This is why Termux is no longer being updated in the Play Store.)

2.5.3 Apps that transmit viruses, files, computer code, or programs
that may harm or disrupt the normal operation of the operating system
and/or hardware features, including Push Notifications and Game
Center, will be rejected. Egregious violations and repeat behavior
will result in removal from the Apple Developer Program.

If you can run arbitrary code, you can use it for "may harm" purposes,
so Apple says no.

2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit
framework and WebKit Javascript.

If you can run arbitrary code, you can use it to browse the web.

I'm not here to argue about Apple, however, so while I'll read any
response you have, I don't expect to reply to it.

Elijah
------
expects a terse rebuttal that includes no detail because "nospam"

In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> Cut and paste from PDFs is shitty,
> no it isn't.

Cut and paste from everywhere else manages to include line breaks and
never accidentally loses white space. That **only** happens to me
with PDFs. Consequently, cut and paste from PDFs is shitty.

> the only time it's a problem is if the pdf is a collection of scanned
> images with ocr, which usually contains ocr errors that don't always

That's not a cut and paste problem, that's shitty content in the
file. I'd have the same results using an OCRed to text version in
that case.

> you think you're getting. that's a problem with scanning and ocr, not
> pdf itself.

The problem with PDFs is that they are not designed for transmitting
text, they are designed for transmitting images of pages. It's perfectly
legal (but rare) for PDFs to remap the characters so "A" displays
"Z", "B" displays as "Y", etc. Copying from those, as well as tools like
pdftotext, get wrong letters. I've run into such shennigans, but not
in recent years.

I've seen many cases where PDFs are two columns of text, but cut and
paste treats it as one column so instead of getting a paragraph like
this one on paste, you get a paragraph like the next one.

I've seen many cases where PDFs so instead of getting a paragraph
are two columns of text, but cut like this one on paste, you get a
and paste treats it as one column paragraph like the next one.

>> Paragraph 19 part (d) sounds very clear cut anti-competitive behaviour.
> it does not.

I do not take legal advice from you, and I think you are a shitty
interpreter of law, and an even shittier explainer of law.

> (d) preventing non-Play app stores and apps from purchasing
> advertising on key Google properties including YouTube and
> the Google search engine results page.
>
> google is not required to do business with another company if it
> doesn't want to.

Spoken like someone who neglects (or rejects) key parts of anti-monopoly
regulation and the consent decrees already imposed on Google.

Unless you meant it in the way of "Google can shoot someone at random on
Fifth Avenue" sense of Google not being required to follow laws.

> it looks like a bunch of lawmakers who don't understand tech trying to
> apply outdated laws.

Too bad they don't get advice from you.

Will you be filing an amicus curiae for Google? Please share it if you do.

Elijah
------
doesn't see monopoly law as outdated

In article <eli$2107081956@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> >> Yes! I want more competition in this space. Android is, for now, the
> >> lessor of the two evils under my calculus, because I can use things
> >> like F-Droid and install a compiler on my phone.
> > you're actually going to write apps on a phone??
>
> What is an "app"? I write and run programs (non-GUI) things on my phone.
> I compile and run other programs (non-GUI) on my phone. Not being able
> to do even basic programming was a very frustrating thing when I was
> still on feature phones.

what problem are you trying to solve? is there a particular task you
want to automate?

old school programming on a phone might be amusing, but it's not
particularly effective in solving real world problems.

> >> (Apple for some reason
> >> thinks a Unix shell with a Unix tools on a phone is a threat.)
> > no they don't.
> >
> > it's not a particularly useful thing to have, but it's not prohibited.
>
> https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
> 2.5 Software Requirements
>
> 2.5.2 Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not
> read or write data outside the designated container area, nor may
> they download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes
> features or functionality of the app, including other apps.
> Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to
> test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code
> provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps
> must make the source code provided by the app completely viewable and
> editable by the user.

that doesn't prohibit unix shells.

try again.

there are at least two unix shells on the app store right now. i have
both installed. there may be more, but i haven't bothered looking.

have you ever written *any* ios apps? i have. stop pretending to know
more than those who have actually done so.

> A Unix shell needs to be able to `git clone FOO && cd FOO && make install`
> or it's just a toy.

no it doesn't need to do that.

> Personal communication with Apple employees plus
> observed behavior elsewhere tells me Apple is not going to let that
> happen.

you might want to revisit those conversations and observations.

here's one example:
<https://holzschu.github.io/a-Shell_iOS/>
a-Shell comes with Vim included. You can edit your files and even
run syntax checkers using e.g. vim-lsp or ALE. Or, if you're more
old-school, there is also Ed.

a-Shell uses iOS file sharing ability. You can open directories in
other app sandbox with pickFolder and run TeX or Python there.
You can send the result in a third app. You can also edit files
directly in a-Shell.

a-Shell comes with several programming languages: Lua, Python,
JavaScript, C and C++. Edit your programs and run them inside the
app.

<https://twitter.com/a_Shell_iOS/status/1410330867050897411>
New version of a-Shell and a-Shell mini available on the AppStore
(1.7.3).
What¹s new?
* lg2, a git-like clone based on libgit2.
* tons of UI improvements: sliding your finger moves the cursor or
scrolls the screen.
* vim and less now use the alternate screen.

<https://twitter.com/a_Shell_iOS/status/1404450214652547073>
You can now compile F77 Fortran on your iPhones and iPads.
How? Get f2c and libf2c.a at
https://github.com/holzschu/a-Shell-commands/Š , translate the
Fortran code to C, then compile the C file:

so much for 'apple is not going to let that happen'.

> They don't let non-Apple web browsers run, things like IOS
> Firefox are built around Apple components.

there are hundreds of non-apple browsers. they do use webkit for
security, however, that also brings many other benefits, such as less
battery drain and faster performance.

> Even Android is moving towards making that difficult by removing
> execute permissions from the parts of the filesystem that apps can write
> to. (This is why Termux is no longer being updated in the Play Store.)

unfortunately, we live in a world where such things pose a serious risk.

In article <eli$2107082023@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> >> Cut and paste from PDFs is shitty,
> > no it isn't.
>
> Cut and paste from everywhere else manages to include line breaks and
> never accidentally loses white space. That **only** happens to me
> with PDFs. Consequently, cut and paste from PDFs is shitty.

that sounds like your pdf reader is at fault.

no such problems here, including the pdf being discussed.

> > the only time it's a problem is if the pdf is a collection of scanned
> > images with ocr, which usually contains ocr errors that don't always
>
> That's not a cut and paste problem, that's shitty content in the
> file. I'd have the same results using an OCRed to text version in
> that case.

correct. as i said, that is because the ocr has errors and doesn't line
up with the underlying text.

that's a scanning problem, not a pdf problem.

there are pdfs where it's done well, so it's certainly possible.

> > you think you're getting. that's a problem with scanning and ocr, not
> > pdf itself.
>
> The problem with PDFs is that they are not designed for transmitting
> text, they are designed for transmitting images of pages.

that is incorrect.

> It's perfectly
> legal (but rare) for PDFs to remap the characters so "A" displays
> "Z", "B" displays as "Y", etc. Copying from those, as well as tools like
> pdftotext, get wrong letters. I've run into such shennigans, but not
> in recent years.

that would be highly unusual and not a fault of pdf, but rather that
the creator of the pdf was trying to do something unusual.

> I've seen many cases where PDFs are two columns of text, but cut and
> paste treats it as one column so instead of getting a paragraph like
> this one on paste, you get a paragraph like the next one.

that's because of the page layout, not something specific to pdf.

that can happen with other document formats and many web sites.

> I've seen many cases where PDFs so instead of getting a paragraph
> are two columns of text, but cut like this one on paste, you get a
> and paste treats it as one column paragraph like the next one.

again, that's layout, not specific to pdf.

> >> Paragraph 19 part (d) sounds very clear cut anti-competitive behaviour.
> > it does not.
>
> I do not take legal advice from you, and I think you are a shitty
> interpreter of law, and an even shittier explainer of law.

then consult your attorney and have them explain it to you.

simply claiming that it 'sounds very clear' is not sufficient.

or you could wait for google to file their response, which will go into
great detail as to why their claims are bogus.

> > (d) preventing non-Play app stores and apps from purchasing
> > advertising on key Google properties including YouTube and
> > the Google search engine results page.
> >
> > google is not required to do business with another company if it
> > doesn't want to.
>
> Spoken like someone who neglects (or rejects) key parts of anti-monopoly
> regulation and the consent decrees already imposed on Google.

what key parts of anti-monopoly regulation are they in violation? be
specific.

google is entitled to refuse ads if they choose to do so. same as any
other company.

why do you think anyone and everyone can run an ad with google?

why do you think google must be forced to carry ads it does not want to
carry?

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> NewsKrawler wrote:
>
>> 36 states sue Google for alleged antitrust violations of Android app store
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
>>
>> "The lawsuit filed in California federal court is the third by state
>> attorneys general to target the company for alleged antitrust violations."
>
> Hmm, since there are many other app stores distributing Android apps,
> how is Google engaging in antitrust violations. Any app developer is
> free to distribute their apps through another app store, or directly to
> the end user.

Yep, like through Amazon's app store, or Samsung's, or 1 Mobile Market.
Then there are the apps that apparently don't want to bother using
Google's store, or would run afoul of Google's safety measures (e.g.,
F-Droid, APKMirror, APKPure). There's another mostly a community of app
devs: XDA-Dev.

This harkens back to when Microsoft was hit with an anti-trust lawsuit
for bundling Internet Explorer in Windows. Since it was there, that
vast majority of users glomed onto that web browser. With Android and
the bundling of the Play Store app that directs users to Google's app
store, the vast majority of users go there for apps. Seems the anti-
trust lawsuit is geared to the uber-boobs that cannot manage to find
apps anywhere other than Google's play store.

Once anyone gets into the position of having majority market share, yep,
they surely must be targeted for anti-trust lawsuits. Why isn't Apply
targeted for the same leverage? If not, well, consider the marketshare
of Android versus iOS, and it's not difficult to see why the one with
the deepest pocket gets targeted.