Category Archives: Monopoly

Android users in Singapore to be blocked from installing apps from 3rd parties

Posted on by

SINGAPORE – Android users here will be blocked from installing apps from unverified sources, a process called sideloading, as part of a new trial by Google to crack down on malware scams.

The security tool will work in the background to detect apps that demand suspicious permissions, like those that grant the ability to spy on screen content or read SMS messages, which scammers have been known to abuse to intercept one-time passwords.

Singapore is the first country to begin the gradual roll-out of the security feature over the next few weeks, done in collaboration with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, according to a statement on Feb 7 by Google, which develops the Android software.

The update will progressively arrive on all Android users’ devices and will be enabled by default through Google Play Protect, said Google’s director of android security strategy Eugene Liderman, in reply to questions by The Straits Times.

Users who are blocked from downloading a suspicious app will be notified with an explanation.

Users cannot deactivate the pilot feature without disabling all of Google Play Protect, said Mr Liderman, adding that deactivation of the program, which scans Android devices for harmful behaviour like suspicious apps, is not recommended for user safety.

[…]

The update, which will be automatically activated, will roll out to all Android devices with Google Play services – a security program built into Android devices that scans for potentially harmful apps – here, starting with a small number of users to assess the effectiveness of the tool, he said.

Sideloaded apps can come in the form of apps used by overseas businesses that do not use the Google ecosystem, to device customisation tools and free versions of paid apps.

[…]

The feature marks Google’s most heavy-handed feature to stamp out malicious sideloaded apps.

[…]

Samsung, which runs on Android, also launched Auto Blocker for Samsung Galaxy device users who are using the One UI 6 software in November. The tool, which has to be activated in the settings menu, bars sideloaded apps from unverified sources.

Source: Android users in S’pore to be blocked from installing unverified apps as part of anti-scam trial | The Straits Times

So basically they are citing user safetly to limit what you do on your phone and enforce their marketplace monopoly. Something both Apple and Google have been slammed with explicitly in the EU and US as part of antitrust lawsuits – which they have lost.

Of course, Google Play Protect is itself spyware – everything it scans (which is your whole phone) is sent to Google without an opt out. So you can decide to stop this insanity by disabling the Google Spyware.

Shameless Insult, Malicious Compliance, Junk Fees, Extortion Regime: Industry Reacts To Apple’s Proposed Changes Over Digital Markets Act

Posted on by

In response to new EU regulations, Apple on Thursday outlined plans to allow iOS developers to distribute apps outside the App Store starting in March, though developers must still submit apps for Apple’s review and pay commissions. Now critics say the changes don’t go far enough and Apple retains too much control.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney: They are forcing developers to choose between App Store exclusivity and the store terms, which will be illegal under DMA (Digital Markets Act), or accept a new also-illegal anticompetitive scheme rife with new Junk Fees on downloads and new Apple taxes on payments they don’t process. 37signals’s David Heinemeier Hansson, who is also the creator of Ruby on Rails: Let’s start with the extortion regime that’ll befell any large developer who might be tempted to try hosting their app in one of these new alternative app stores that the EU forced Apple to allow. And let’s take Meta as a good example. Their Instagram app alone is used by over 300 million people in Europe. Let’s just say for easy math there’s 250 million of those in the EU. In order to distribute Instagram on, say, a new Microsoft iOS App Store, Meta would have to pay Apple $11,277,174 PER MONTH(!!!) as a “Core Technology Fee.” That’s $135 MILLION DOLLARS per year. Just for the privilege of putting Instagram into a competing store. No fee if they stay in Apple’s App Store exclusively.

Holy shakedown, batman! That might be the most blatant extortion attempt ever committed to public policy by any technology company ever. And Meta has many successful apps! WhatsApp is even more popular in Europe than Instagram, so that’s another $135M+/year. Then they gotta pay for the Facebook app too. There’s the Messenger app. You add a hundred million here and a hundred million there, and suddenly you’re talking about real money! Even for a big corporation like Meta, it would be an insane expense to offer all their apps in these new alternative app stores.

Which, of course, is the entire point. Apple doesn’t want Meta, or anyone, to actually use these alternative app stores. They want everything to stay exactly as it is, so they can continue with the rake undisturbed. This poison pill is therefore explicitly designed to ensure that no second-party app store ever takes off. Without any of the big apps, there will be no draw, and there’ll be no stores. All of the EU’s efforts to create competition in the digital markets will be for nothing. And Apple gets to send a clear signal: If you interrupt our tool-booth operation, we’ll make you regret it, and we’ll make you pay. Don’t resist, just let it be. Let’s hope the EU doesn’t just let it be. Coalition of App Fairness, an industry body that represents over 70 firms including Tinder, Spotify, Proton, Tile, and News Media Europe: “Apple clearly has no intention to comply with the DMA. Apple is introducing new fees on direct downloads and payments they do nothing to process, which violates the law. This plan does not achieve the DMA’s goal to increase competition and fairness in the digital market — it is not fair, reasonable, nor non-discriminatory,” said Rick VanMeter, Executive Director of the Coalition for App Fairness.

“Apple’s proposal forces developers to choose between two anticompetitive and illegal options. Either stick with the terrible status quo or opt into a new convoluted set of terms that are bad for developers and consumers alike. This is yet another attempt to circumvent regulation, the likes of which we’ve seen in the United States, the Netherlands and South Korea. Apple’s ‘plan’ is a shameless insult to the European Commission and the millions of European consumers they represent — it must not stand and should be rejected by the Commission.”

Source: Shameless Insult, Malicious Compliance, Junk Fees, Extortion Regime: Industry Reacts To Apple’s Proposed Changes Over Digital Markets Act

Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox

Posted on by

Apple’s new rules in the European Union mean browsers like Firefox can finally use their own engines on iOS. Although this may seem like a welcome change, Mozilla spokesperson Damiano DeMonte tells The Verge it’s “extremely disappointed” with the way things turned out.

“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.”

[…]

“Apple’s proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari,” DeMonte adds. “This is another example of Apple creating barriers to prevent true browser competition on iOS.”

Mozilla isn’t the only developer critical of Apple’s new rules, which also extend to game streaming apps, alternative app stores, and sideloading. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the new terms a “horror show,” while Spotify said the changes are a “farce.” Apple’s guidelines are still pending approval by the EU Commission.

Source: Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox – The Verge

Apple Isn’t Ready to Release Its Grip on the App Store

Posted on by

[…] For the first time, new EU rules have forced the company to entertain the idea that you can shop for apps outside of Apple’s own App Store, as well as allow browsers other than Apple’s own Safari to run on iOS with their full suite of features.

Yet critics say those changes, although drastic, do not go far enough to comply with new EU rules, and a new fee system for developers reveals how Apple is not yet ready to release its grip on the App Store.

“The new fees and restrictions simply reinforce Apple’s hold over its ecosystem,” Andy Yen, founder and CEO of Swiss encrypted email and VPN provider, Proton, said in response to the changes.

[…]

The European Union’s solution was a law called the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The idea wasn’t to break up Big Tech, former French digital minister Cédric O explained in a press conference in 2022. Instead the law was designed to break these platforms open.

On January 25, the EU seemed like it was finally starting to succeed in that mission, when Apple shared the first details of how the residents of the EU’s 27 member states will soon be able to download apps from alternative app stores onto their iPhones and iPads. Developers will also be able to use third-party payment providers inside apps offered by the Apple App Store for free, and will pay a reduced commission of up to 17 percent for in-app goods and services, the company said.

[…]

Apple made it clear the company will maintain an element of control over the apps and new app stores operating on its devices—arguing this was necessary to reduce “privacy and security risks.” Apple said it will use a new system to track alternative app stores and payment systems, while charging developers a €0.50 ($0.54) “core technology fee” for every download—made through Apple’s App Store or an alternative—once an app is downloaded more than one million times.

“Especially for the big app developers with loads of downloads, who are the ones that really Apple make all their money from, that will rack up to a very high cost very quickly,” says Max von Thun, Europe director at Open Markets, a group dedicated to campaigning against monopolies.

[…]

The caveats sparked outrage from developers that had been hoping to benefit from DMA-inspired changes. “Allowing alternative payments and marketplaces seems positive on the surface, but the strings attached to Apple’s new policies mean that in practice it will be impossible for developers to benefit from them,” Proton’s Yen said in a statement. “Apple will continue stifling competition and innovation, and taking a cut even when developers opt out of its walled garden.”

Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, went further, accusing Apple on X of “twisting this process to undermine competition and continue imposing Apple taxes on transactions they’re not involved in.”

[…]

With just a matter of weeks until the EU’s March deadline, Apple and developers alike will soon find out whether the EU thinks those changes have gone far enough.

Source: Apple Isn’t Ready to Release Its Grip on the App Store | WIRED

EU forces Apple to open up to third-party app stores and payments. Details emerge what it will look like.

Posted on by

Apple is making major changes to the App Store and other core parts of iOS in Europe in response to new European Union laws. Beginning in March, Apple will allow users within the EU to download apps and make purchases from outside of its App Store. The company is already testing many of these changes in its iOS 17.4 beta, which is available now to developers.

Apple has long resisted many of these changes, arguing that it would leave users susceptible to scams, malware and other privacy and security issues. But under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which goes into effect March 7, major tech companies like Apple are required to make significant changes to their businesses.

[…]

The most significant changes will be for developers, who will be able to take payments and distribute apps from outside of the App Store for the first time. Under the new rules, Apple will still enforce a review process for apps that don’t come through its store. Called “Notarization,” the review will use automation and human reviewers and will be “focused on platform integrity and protecting users” from things like malware. But the company notes it has “less ability to address other risks — including apps that contain scams, fraud, and abuse, or that expose users to illicit, objectionable, or harmful content.”

Apple is also changing its often-criticized commission structure so that developers will pay 17 percent on subscriptions and in-app purchases with the fee reducing to 10 percent for “most developers” after the first year.

At the same time, Apple is tacking on a new 3 percent “payment processing” fee for transactions that go through its store. And a new “core technology fee” will charge a flat €0.50 fee for all app downloads, regardless of whether they come from the App Store or a third-party website, after the first 1 million installations.

[…]

pple will offer new APIs that will allow app makers to access the iPhone’s NFC chip for wireless payments, enabling tap-to-pay transactions that don’t rely on Apple Pay.

It’s also making a tweak to its Safari web browser so that iOS users in Europe will be immediately prompted about whether they want to change their default browser the first time they launch the app after the iOS 17.4 update. Additionally, browser developer will be able to use an engine besides Apple’s own WebKit, which could lead to browsers like Chrome and Firefox releasing new versions using their own technology for rendering sites.

[…]

Source: Apple details how third-party app stores and payments will work in Europe

So… I wonder how many apps will easily find their way through the “Notarization” process? And how do they justify charging for downloads from stores they do not own? It can not possibly be in the spirit of the EU laws to allow this.

Supreme Court declines appeals from Apple and Epic Games in App Store case

Posted on by

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeals filed by both Apple and Epic Games following a judge’s ruling that Apple must allow developers to offer alternative methods to pay for apps and services other than through the App Store. It did not provide an explanation as to why it refused to review either appeal, but it means the permanent injunction giving developers a way to avoid the 30 percent cut Apple takes will remain in place.

Apple made the appeal to the high court back in September of last year, requesting it review the circuit court’s decision it deemed “unconstitutional.” The case brought forward by Epic Games is the first to challenge the business model of the App store, which helps Apple rake in billions. In May 2023, Apple said that developers generated about $1 trillion in total billings through the App Store in 2022. Gaming apps sold on the App Store generate an estimated $100 billion in revenue each year.

While the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Epic’s appeal that Apple has indeed broken California’s Unfair Competition law, it rejected Epic’s claim that the App store is a monopoly. In addition to declining to hear Apple’s appeal, SCOTUS also will not review Epic’s appeal that the district court had made “legal errors.”

Epic claimed that Apple violates federal antitrust laws through its business model, however, this is not an issue the high court will consider.

[…]

Source: Supreme Court declines appeals from Apple and Epic Games in App Store case

I can have app store? Apple: yes but NO! Give €1,000,000 + lock in to Apple ecosystem. This is how to “comply” with EU anti competition law

Posted on by
a rotting apple core with a closed padlock running through it

Apple is keeping a firm grip on people with alternative marketplaces, fleecing them for money but also for other control. Here are some of the terms Apple requires you to conform to in order to start up your own app store (which they call alternative marketplace):

If you’re interested in becoming a marketplace developer in the EU, the Account Holder of your Apple Developer Program membership will first need to agree to the Alternative Terms Addendum for Apps in the EU. Once they’ve agreed, they can submit a request for the entitlement.

To qualify for the entitlement, you must:

  • Be enrolled in the Apple Developer Program as an organization incorporated, domiciled, and or registered in the EU (or have a subsidiary legal entity incorporated, domiciled, and or registered in the EU that’s listed in App Store Connect). The location associated with your legal entity is listed in your Apple Developer account.
  • Agree to build an app whose primary purpose is discovery and distribution of apps, including apps from other developers.
  • Agree to provide and publish terms, including those pertaining to content and business model, for apps you will distribute, and accept apps that meet those terms.
  • […]

But what rankles most is the amount of money Apple not only fleeces from marketplaces for every installation – especially considering that Apple is not doing anything for the download – but that the barrier to entry is set at ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Understanding payments, fees, and taxes

Stand-by letter of credit

In order to establish adequate financial means to guarantee support for developers and customers, marketplace developers must provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 prior to receiving the entitlement. It will need to be auto-renewed on a yearly basis.

Core Technology Fee

The DMA requires Apple to support distribution and payment processing alternatives that are facilitated outside the App Store. To reflect the value Apple provides marketplace developers with ongoing investments in developer tools, technologies, and program services, Apple has introduced a Core Technology Fee.

  • Marketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps.
Source: Getting started as an alternative app marketplace in the European Union

Of course, Apple is the one deciding if you are allowed to create an app store. What is the likelihood of that happening? Should you be one of the happy few (uhm, wait – didn’t the EU have this ruling as part of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), an anti competitive set of laws, aimed at allowing EVERYONE access?), then you still have to build an Apple App – ie you have to pay Apple to have your app in the app store and they will review your app in their app store. In the words of Apple:

An alternative app marketplace is an iOS app from which someone can install other third-party apps. To create a marketplace, fill out a webform that outlines the qualifications. If approved, Apple enables a code-signing entitlement on your account to distribute your marketplace app on the web. Apple also provides you with a framework that facilitates the secure installation of apps that your marketplace hosts.

To set up a marketplace, upload a public key, or marketplace key, to App Store Connect that regularly verifies the agreement, or relationship, you make with other developers that distribute their app on your marketplace.

The architecture of an app marketplace includes an iOS app, a webpage, from which people download your app, and a webserver that stores app data it regularly receives from App Store Connect.

Source: Creating an alternative app marketplace

So the value Apple describes above is basically that they force you to set up your App store from inside their App store. Apple then tells you how to run it and wants to know exactly what is going on inside it, so they can grab their €0.50 per year per app downloaded from it.

So really, the way in which Apple is conforming to the EU DMA is by offering a massive finger to the EU and it’s developers.

HP sued (again) for blocking third-party ink from printers via security updates

Posted on by

HP has used its “Dynamic Security” firmware updates to “create a monopoly” of replacement printer ink cartridges, a lawsuit filed against the company on January 5 claims. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action certification, represents yet another form of litigation against HP for bricking printers when they try to use ink that doesn’t bear an HP logo.

The lawsuit (PDF), which was filed in US District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, names 11 plaintiffs and seeks an injunction against HP requiring the company to disable its printer firmware updates from preventing the use of non-HP branded ink. The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages greater than $5,000,000 and a trial by jury.

The lawsuit focuses on HP printer firmware updates issued in late 2022 and early 2023 that left users seeing this message on their printers when they tried to print with non-HP ink:

The lawsuit cites this pop-up message users saw.
Enlarge / The lawsuit cites this pop-up message users saw.
grhhull/Reddit

HP was wrong to issue a firmware update affecting printer functionality, and users were not notified that accepting firmware updates “could damage any features of the printer,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also questions HP’s practice of encouraging people to register their printers and then quietly releasing updates that change the printers’ functionality. Additionally, the lawsuit highlights the fact that the use of non-HP ink cartridges doesn’t break HP’s printer warranty.

The filing reads:

… it is not practical or economically rational to purchase a new printer in order to avoid purchasing HP replacement ink cartridges. Therefore, once consumers purchase their printers, the Dynamic Security firmware updates lock them into purchasing HP-branded ink.

HP is proud of its strategy of locking in printer customers. Last month, HP CFO Marie Myers praised the company’s movement from transactional models to forcing customers into continuous buys through offerings like Instant Ink, HP’s monthly ink subscription program.

“We absolutely see when you move a customer from that pure transactional model … whether it’s [to] Instant Ink, plus adding on that paper, we sort of see a 20 percent uplift on the value of that customer because you’re locking that person, committing to a longer-term relationship,” Myers said, as quoted by The Register.

[…]

The lawsuit accuses HP of raising prices on its ink “in the same time period” that it issued its late 2022 and early 2023 firmware updates, which “create[d] a monopoly in the aftermarket for replacement cartridges, permitting [HP] to raise prices without fear of being undercut by competitors.

[…]

HP’s decision to use firmware updates to brick printers using non-HP ink has landed it in litigation numerous times since Dynamic Security debuted in 2016. While the recently filed case is still in its early stages, it’s another example of how disgruntled users have become with HP seizing control over the type of ink that customers insert into hardware they own.

For example, HP agreed to pay $1.5 million in 2019 to settle a class-action case in California about Dynamic Security.

Overseas, HP paid European customers $1.35 million for Dynamic Security. It also paid a 10,000,000-euro fine to the Italian Antitrust Authority in 2020 over the practice and agreed to pay approximately AUD$50 each to Australian customers in 2018.

In addition to the lawsuit filed earlier this month, HP is facing a lawsuit filed in California in 2020 over an alleged failure to disclose information about Dynamic Security. As noted by Reuters, in December, a Northern District of California judge ruled (PDF) that the lawsuit may not result in monetary rewards, but plaintiffs may seek an injunction against the practice.

HP has also been fighting a lawsuit complaining about some of its printers refusing to scan and/or fax without HP ink loaded into the device, even though ink isn’t required to scan or fax a document. (This is something other printer companies are guilty of, too).

Despite already enduring payouts regarding Dynamic Security and calls for HP printers to be ousted from the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) registry, HP seems committed to using firmware updates to try to control how people use their own printers.

[…]

Source: HP sued (again) for blocking third-party ink from printers, accused of monopoly | Ars Technica

Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states

Posted on by

On December 11th, a jury decided that Google has an illegal monopoly with its Google Play app store, handing Epic Games a win. But Epic wasn’t the only one fighting an antitrust case. All 50 state attorneys general settled a similar lawsuit in September, and we’ve just now learned what Google agreed to give up as a result: $700 million and a handful of minor concessions in the way that Google runs its store in the United States.

The biggest change: Google will need to let developers steer consumers away from the Google Play Store for several years, if this settlement is approved.

You can read the full 68-page settlement for yourself at the bottom of this story, but here’s the TL;DR about what it includes:

  • $700,000,000 from Google in total (roughly 21 days of Google’s operating profit from the app store alone)
  • $629,000,000 of which will go to consumers who may have overpaid for apps or in-app purchases via Google Play after taxes, lawyers’ fees, and so on
  • $70,000,000 of which will go to states to be used as the state AGs see fit
  • $1,000,000 of which is for settlement administration
  • For 7 years, Google will “continue to technically enable Android to allow the installation of third-party apps on Mobile Devices through means other than Google Play”
  • For 5 years, Google will let developers offer an alternative in-app billing system next to Google Play (aka “User Choice Billing”)
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make developers offer their best prices to customers who pick Google Play and Google Play Billing
  • For 4 years, Google won’t make developers ship titles on Google Play at the same time as other stores and with feature parity
  • For 5 years, Google won’t make companies exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen
  • For 4 years, Google won’t stop OEMs from granting installer rights to preloaded apps
  • For 5 years, Google won’t require its “consent” before an OEM preloads a third-party app store
  • For 4 years, Google will let third-party app stores update apps without requiring user approval
  • For 4 years, Google will let sideloaded app stores use its APIs and “feature splits” to help install apps
  • For 5 years, Google will turn its two sideloading “scare screens” into a single user prompt which will read the equivalent of this agreed-upon language: “Your phone currently isn’t configured to install apps from this source. Granting this source permission to install apps could place your phone and data at risk.”
  • For 5 years, Google will let User Choice Billing participating developers let their users know about better pricing elsewhere and “complete transactions using the developer’s existing web-based billing solution in an embedded webview within its app.”
  • For 6 years, Google will “continue to allow developers to use contact information obtained outside the app or in-app (with User consent) to communicate with Users out-of-app”
  • For 6 years, Google will let consumption only apps (e.g. Netflix, which doesn’t let you pay on device) tell users about better prices elsewhere, without linking to an outside website — example: “Available on our website for $9.99”
  • For 6 years, Google “shall not prohibit developers from disclosing to Users any service or other fees associated with the Google Play or Google Play’s billing system.”

Does that sound like a lot? If you add it all up, it does make for a slightly different Google app store landscape than we’ve experienced over the past decade and change. But not only does every one of these concessions have an expiration date, many of them are arguably not real concessions.

Google argued during the Epic v. Google trial that users were already perfectly able to install third-party apps on their devices through any number of means, and it claimed many of its agreements with developers, OEMs, and carriers did not require them to, for instance, exclusively put Google Play on a phone or its homescreen.

More importantly, several of the most significant sounding changes here are tied to Google’s User Choice Billing program — which is mostly a fake choice, the Epic v. Google trial proved.

We confirmed with Google spokesperson Dan Jackson this evening that User Choice Billing participants are given a discounted rate of just 4 percent off of Google’s fee when users choose their own payment system, and that it won’t change as a result of the settlement. Not only did Google internally find that developers would lose money when users choose the 4 percent rate, but Google also gives companies like Spotify a free ride while apparently charging everyone else.

Perhaps most importantly, Google is reserving the right not to let developers like Netflix link to their own websites to give their users a discounted rate. “Google is not required to allow developers to include links that take a User outside an app distributed through Google Play to make a purchase,” the settlement agreement reads. We are still waiting to find out whether Apple will allow links and/or buttons to alternative payment systems, based on the ruling in Epic v. Apple. But the Google / state AGs settlement suggests that regardless, Google will not be required to allow links.

[…]

Source: Google to pay $700 million and make tiny app store changes to settle with 50 states – The Verge

It’s still baffling that Google lost this case and Apple won it on almost exactly the same grounds, where in Google’s case you can actually sideload apps “legally” (if in an obtuse manner which makes you think you are doing something wrong) and in Apple’s you can’t.

Jury finds Google’s Play store is illegal monopoly – now… Apple?

Posted on by

The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As The Register has reported, the matter tested Epic’s allegations that Google stifles competition by requiring developers to pay it commissions even if they use third-party payment services, and paid some developers to secure their exclusive presence on the Play store.

The case commenced in early November and on Monday a nine-member jury found in Epic’s favor.

As it was a jury case, the reasoning was not revealed.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney thanked the jurors anyway in a post that declared “Today’s verdict is a win for all app developers and consumers around the world.”

Sweeney wrote that the verdict “proves that Google’s app store practices are illegal and they abuse their monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, stifle competition and reduce innovation.”

In Sweeney’s telling, the jurors heard “evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores.”

Google denies such skulduggery and in statement reported by Axios vowed to appeal on grounds that the search and ads giant faces strong competition from Apple and rival app stores for Android.

[…]

The Apple case produced some small wins for Epic. But the Google decision is … erm … Epic, as it appears to be a full-throated declaration that the Play store is a monopoly.

The case will return to court in early 2024, when the presiding judge will consider remedies – which could include forcing Google to offload the Play store.

But this is far from the end of the matter – both for Epic Games and for the wider issue of tech monopolies.

[…]

legislators are increasingly taking action to erode Big Tech’s power, with the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill, and the EU’s Digital Markets Act his exemplars of such activity. ®

Source: Jury finds Google’s Play store is illegal monopoly • The Register

Google reportedly struck a special with Spotify that let it skip Play Store fees revealed in Epic vs Google lawsuit

Posted on by

Spotify struck a special deal with Google that lets it pay no commission to Google when people sign up for subscriptions using the music streaming service’s own payment system on Android, according to new testimony in the ongoing Epic v. Google trial first reported by The Verge. As part of the same deal, Spotify paid Google just four percent commission if users signed up for the service through Google, far less than most other apps which typically pay 15 percent for subscriptions through the Google Play Store.

“Listening to music is one of [the phone’s] core purposes… if we don’t have Spotify working properly across Play services and core services, people will not buy Android phones”, Google’s partnerships head Don Harrison reportedly said in court. Both Google and Spotify also agreed to put $50 million each in a “success fund” as part of the deal.

The remarks were made as part of a lawsuit first filed against Google by Epic Games, the maker of the wildly popular Fortnite, in 2020. Epic claimed that Google’s Play Store on Android was an illegal monopoly that forced app makers to part with huge sums of cash in exchange for offering users in-app purchases through the Play Store. Epic filed a similar lawsuit against Apple in 2021, which it lost.

“A small number of developers that invest more directly in Android and Play may have different service fees as part of a broader partnership that includes substantial financial investments and product integrations across different form factors,” Dan Jackson, a Google spokesperson, wrote to Engadget in a statement. “These key investment partnerships allow us to bring more users to Android and Play by continuously improving the experience for all users and create new opportunities for all developers.”

Spotify initially supported Epic in its fight against Google and Apple. But in 2022, the company started using a Google program called User Choice Billing that let Android apps use their own payment systems in exchange for giving a reduced cut to Google. The special deal revealed in court showed that Google was willing to carve out even more exceptions for popular apps like Spotify.

Source: Google reportedly struck a special with Spotify that let it skip Play Store fees

So it’s not a very level playing field in the app store at all then?

The EU DMA will finally free Windows users from Bing (but not Edge) and allow 3rd parties into the widgets

Posted on by

Microsoft will soon let Windows 11 users in the European Economic Area (EEA) disable its Bing web search, remove Microsoft Edge, and even add custom web search providers — including Google if it’s willing to build one — into its Windows Search interface.

All of these Windows 11 changes are part of key tweaks that Microsoft has to make to its operating system to comply with the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect in March 2024. Microsoft will be required to meet a slew of interoperability and competition rules, including allowing users “to easily un-install pre-installed apps or change default settings on operating systems, virtual assistants, or web browsers that steer them to the products and services of the gatekeeper and provide choice screens for key services.”

Alongside clearly marking which apps are system components in Windows 11, Microsoft is also responding by adding the ability to uninstall the following apps:

  • Camera
  • Cortana
  • Web Search from Microsoft Bing, in the EEA
  • Microsoft Edge, in the EEA
  • Photos

Only Windows 11 users in the EEA will be able to fully remove Microsoft Edge and the Bing-powered web search from Windows Search. Microsoft could easily extend this to all Windows 11 users, but it’s limiting this extra functionality to EEA markets to comply with the rules. “Windows uses the region chosen by the customer during device setup to identify if the PC is in the EEA,” explains Microsoft in a blog post. “Once chosen in device setup, the region used for DMA compliance can only be changed by resetting the PC.”

In EEA markets — which includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway — Windows 11 users will also get access to new interoperability features for feeds in the Windows Widgets board and web search in Windows Search. This will allow search providers like Google to extend the main Windows Search interface with their own custom web searches.

[…]

We had hoped Microsoft would finally stop forcing Windows 11 users in Europe into Edge if they clicked a link from the Windows Widgets panel or from search results, but Microsoft appears to have changed exactly how it’s implementing this. The software maker previously said it would start testing a change to Windows 11 that would see “Windows system components use the default browser to open links” in EEA markets, but that change never appeared in Windows Insider builds.

“In the EEA, Windows will always use the customers’ configured app default settings for link and file types, including industry standard browser link types (http, https),” says Microsoft. “Apps choose how to open content on Windows, and some Microsoft apps will choose to open web content in Microsoft Edge.”

[…]

Source: The EU will finally free Windows users from Bing – The Verge

Unredacted documents in the FTC’s Amazon lawsuit shed light on the company’s secret price-gouging algorithm

Posted on by

It looks like Amazon is hellbent on keeping its spot as the biggest online retailer — even if that means hurting both sellers and customers. In September, the FTC filed a long-expected antitrust lawsuit against Amazon over its alleged use of illegal strategies to stay on top. Details of the suit were previously withheld from the public, but today a mostly unredacted version was released, including details about Amazon’s secret pricing tool, known as Project Nessie. These algorithms helped Amazon increase prices by over $1 billion over two years, the FTC alleges.

[…]

According to the The Wall Street Journal, the internal documents cited in the original complaint show that Amazon executives were well aware of the effects of the company’s policies. In the documents, Amazon executives acknowledged that these policies, which included requiring Amazon sellers to have the lowest prices online or risk consequences, had a “punitive aspect.” One executive pointed out that many sellers “live in constant fear” of being penalized by Amazon for not following the ever-changing pricing policy.

The FTC also alleges that the company had been monitoring its sellers and punishing them if they offered lower prices on other platforms, which the agency says is a violation of antitrust laws. The unredacted documents indicate that Amazon has increased prices by over $1 billion between 2016 to 2018 with the use of secret price gouging algorithms known as Project Nessie. It was also revealed that the “take rate” — aka the amount Amazon makes from sellers who use the Fulfillment By Amazon logistics program — increased from 27.6 percent in 2014 to 39.5 percent in 2018. It’s unclear if that has changed in more recent years since those numbers remained redacted.

And Amazon isn’t just ruining its sellers’ experience. The complaint also revealed Amazon’s increased use of ads in search results. Several ad executives at the company acknowledged that these sponsored ads were often irrelevant to the initial search and caused “harm to consumers” and the overall experience on the site.

The FTC alleges that these policies were the brainchild of Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and former chief executive, to increase the company’s profit margins.

“Mr. Bezos directly ordered his advertising team to continue to increase the number of advertisements on Amazon by allowing more irrelevant advertisements, because the revenue generated by advertisements eclipsed the revenue lost by degrading consumers’ shopping experience,” the FTC complaint alleges.

Source: Unredacted documents in the FTC’s Amazon lawsuit shed light on the company’s secret price-gouging algorithm

Amazon Used Secret ‘Project Nessie’ Algorithm To Raise Price

Posted on by

Amazon used an algorithm code-named “Project Nessie” to test how much it could raise prices in a way that competitors would follow, according to redacted portions of the Federal Trade Commission’s monopoly lawsuit against the company. From a report: The algorithm helped Amazon improve its profit on items across shopping categories, and because of the power the company has in e-commerce, led competitors to raise their prices and charge customers more, according to people familiar with the allegations in the complaint. In instances where competitors didn’t raise their prices to Amazon’s level, the algorithm — which is no longer in use — automatically returned the item to its normal price point.

The company also used Nessie on what employees saw as a promotional spiral, where Amazon would match a discounted price from a competitor, such as Target.com, and other competitors would follow, lowering their prices. When Target ended its sale, Amazon and the other competitors would remain locked at the low price because they were still matching each other, according to former employees who worked on the algorithm and pricing team. The algorithm helped Amazon recoup money and improve margins. The FTC’s lawsuit redacted an estimate of how much it alleges the practice “extracted from American households,” and it also says it helped the company generate a redacted amount of “excess profit.” Amazon made more than $1 billion in revenue through use of the algorithm, according to a person familiar with the matter. Amazon stopped using the algorithm in 2019, some of the people said. It wasn’t clear why the company stopped using it.

Source: Amazon Used Secret ‘Project Nessie’ Algorithm To Raise Prices – Slashdot

Amazon Partially Wins Against EU Digital Services Act

Posted on by

Amazon has partially won in an EU court case related to European Union ecommerce market regulation laws, which come under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

On Thursday, the EU General Court ruled in favour of Amazon, by agreeing to suspend a requirement under the DSA that Amazon is obligated to follow and make an ads library public.

Amazon argued that the requirement to publish an ads archive would result in the disclosure of confidential information that would cause “serious and irreparable harm to its advertising activities and, by extension, to all its activities.”

The company further claimed the disclosure of the ad information would weaken its competitive position and cause an irreversible loss of market share, as well as harm its ad partners.

However, the Court did not agree to suspend a separate DSA requirement on Amazon to offer users of the store a non-profiling option powering the recommendations it serves them.

In 2022, Amazon was one of those 19 platforms that were subject to follow the strictest level of regulation under the DSA, which seeks a greater degree of transparency and accountability on larger platforms and their algorithms.

The largest ecommerce platform challenged the EU lawsuit regarding it being classified as a VLOP (very large online platform). It also filed for interim measures to suspend certain requirements under the regulation with a pending decision on the wider legal challenge.

The EU Court granted interim relief to Amazon as its activities doesn’t harm legal standard and declined to suspend DSA requirement.

Amazon’s wider challenge regarding its classification as a VLOP under the regulation still continues.

Source: Amazon Partially Wins Against EU Digital Services Act – BW Businessworld – test

FTC and 17 states finally go after Amazon monopoly in new antitrust lawsuit

Posted on by

The FTC – and 17 state attorneys general – have come out swinging at Amazon with a lawsuit accusing the ecommerce giant of being a monopolist.

Amazon, the FTC alleges, engages in anticompetitive conduct in two markets: online ecommerce and also the market for marketplace services used by sellers. The tactics used by Amazon to thwart competition include anti-discounting measures that punish sellers for offering prices lower than Amazons, and requiring vendors to use – and pay for – Amazon’s fulfillment services to make their products eligible for free Prime shipments, the FTC claims.

“Our complaint lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” said FTC Chair and perennial Amazon opponent Lina Khan.

Khan describes Amazon’s as exploiting monopolistic power to enrich itself by raising product prices and degrading services for its customers and businesses. “Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition,” Khan added.

Amazon’s “monopoly rents” are extracted from “everyone within its reach,” the FTC alleges. This hurts customers by replacing relevant organic search results with ads and boosting Amazon’s own products in search results. In addition, excessive fees are allegedly leveled at Amazon sellers, which the FTC said can amount to close to half of a store’s revenue going directly to the online souk, and which it asserts are passed on to consumers.

[…]

“We can and should break up Amazon,” said Athena Coalition, a self-described anti-Amazon grassroots group, in a statement. “Amazon has a long history of combining and utilizing its many businesses together as an integrated whole to leverage its power against workers, businesses, and ultimately all of us.”

The group said that an FTC victory would free Amazon sellers to work with whomever they chose, rather than being forced to go to Amazon. Rather than harming consumers, Athena said that an Amazon reigned in by the FTC would also mean more choice and lower costs for Amazon customers, too.

[…]

Source: Amazon a ‘monopolist,’ claims FTC in new antitrust lawsuit • The Register

Google Pays $10 Billion a Year To Maintain Monopoly, US Says

Posted on by

Alphabet’s Google pays more than $10 billion a year to maintain its position as the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices, stifling competition, the US Justice Department said Tuesday at the start of a high-stakes antitrust trial in Washington. From a report: “This case is about the future of the internet and whether Google’s search engine will ever face meaningful competition,” Kenneth Dintzer, a government lawyer, said in his opening statement. “The evidence will show they demanded default exclusivity to block rivals.” Dintzer said Google became a monopoly by at least 2010 and today controls more than 89% of the online search market.

“The company pays billions for defaults because they are uniquely powerful,” he said. “For the last 12 years, Google has abused its monopoly in general search.” The monopolization trial is the first pitting the federal government against a US technology company in more than two decades. The Justice Department and 52 attorneys general from states and US territories allege Google illegally maintained its monopoly by paying billions to tech rivals, smartphone makers and wireless providers in exchange for being set as the preselected option or default on mobile phones and web browsers.

Source: Google Pays $10 Billion a Year To Maintain Monopoly, US Says – Slashdot

South Korea ‘puts the brakes’ on Google app store dominance

Posted on by

A Wednesday statement from the Commission brought news that in late July it wrote to Google to inform it of the ₩42.1 billion ($31.5 million) fine announced, and reported by The Register, in April 2023.

The Commission has also commenced monitoring activities to ensure that Google complies with requirements to allow competition with its Play store.

South Korea probed the operation of Play after a rival local Android app-mart named OneStore debuted in 2016.

OneStore had decent prospects of success because it merged app stores operated by South Korea’s top three telcos. Naver, an online portal similar in many ways to Google, also rolled its app store into OneStore.

Soon afterwards, Google told developers they were free to sell their wares in OneStore – but doing so would see them removed from the Play store.

Google also offered South Korean developers export assistance if they signed exclusivity deals in their home country.

Faced with the choice of being cut off from the larger markets Google owned, developer enthusiasm for dabbling in OneStore dwindled. Some popular games never made it into OneStore, so even though its founders had tens of millions of customers between them, the venture struggled.

Which is why Korea’s Fair Trade Commission intervened with an investigation, the fines mentioned above, and a requirement that Google revisit agreements with local developers.

Google has also been required to establish an internal monitoring system to ensure it complies with the Commission’s orders.

Commission chair Ki-Jeong Han used strong language in today’s announcement, describing his agency’s actions as “putting the brakes” on Google’s efforts to achieve global app store dominance.

“Monopolization of the app market may adversely affect the entire mobile ecosystem,” the Commissioner’s statement reads, adding “The recovery of competition in this market is very important.”

It’s also likely beneficial to South Korean companies. OneStore has tried to expand overseas, and Samsung – the world’s top smartphone vendor by unit volume – also stands to gain. It operates its own Galaxy Store that, despite its presence on hundreds of millions of handsets, enjoys trivial market share.

Source: South Korea ‘puts the brakes’ on Google app store dominance • The Register

Amazon Now Punishes Merchants Who Ship Their Own Products – flexing monopoly!

Posted on by

Third-party merchants on Amazon who ship their own packages will see an additional fee for each product sold starting on Oct. 1st. Sellers could previously choose to ship their products without contributing to Amazon, but the new fee means members of Amazon’s Seller Fulfilled Prime program will be required to pay the company 2% on each product sold.

The new surcharge is in addition to other payments Amazon receives from merchants starting with the selling plan which costs $0.99 for each product sold or $39.99 per month for an unlimited number of sales. The company also charges a referral fee for each item sold, with most ranging between 8% and 15% depending on the product category.

Since the program launched in 2015, merchants could independently ship their products without paying a fee to Amazon but the new shipping charge may add pressure to switch to the company’s in-house service. As it stands, sellers can already incur other additional charges including fees for stocking inventory, rental book service, high-volume listings, and a refund administration fee, although Amazon does not list the costs on its website.

[…]

Source: Amazon Now Punishes Merchants Who Ship Their Own Products

This is a problem where Amazon is using it’s position to create a logistics monopoly and putting other logistics firms out of business. Amazon should stick to being a marketplace and this should be enforced by government.

Spain antitrust watchdog fines Amazon, Apple $218 million for collusion and exclusion

Posted on by

Spain’s antitrust watchdog on Tuesday said it had imposed fines worth a total 194.1 million euros ($218.03 million) on Amazon (AMZN.O) and Apple (AAPL.O) for colluding to limit the online sale of devices from Apple and competitors in Spain.

The two contracts the companies signed on Oct. 31, 2018 granting Amazon the status of authorized Apple dealer included anti-competitive clauses that affected the online market for electronic devices in Spain, CNMC, as the watchdog is known, said in a statement.

Apple was fined 143.6 million euros and Amazon 50.5 million euros. The two companies have two months to appeal the decision.

[…]

“The two companies restricted without justification the number of sellers of Apple products on the Amazon website in Spain,” CNMC said.

More than 90% of the existing retailers who were using Amazon’s market place to sell Apple devices were blocked as a result, it added.

Amazon also reduced the capacity of retailers in the European Union based outside Spain to access Spanish customers, and restricted the advertising Apple’s competitors were allowed to place on its website when users searched for Apple products, the regulator said.

Following the deal between the two tech giants, the prices of Apple devices sold online rose in Spain, it added.

[…]

Source: Spain antitrust watchdog fines Amazon, Apple $218 million | Reuters

Yay the power of a monopoly!