Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

What country requires that?

In the US, there's no requirement for a company to honor the claims of prior advertisements for things that they might do in the future for a different product. And even if a company does lie about the features of their product, advertising law does not require a company to change the features of their product to meet those claims. What could be required is a change in the advertising, or a refund for people who bought the devices under the false terms.

But if you advertise a certain side of feature features in a phone three years ago, and sell something completely different next year, that's entirely legal.

View on HN

It's certainly possible for the same company to create an open platform in addition to a separate platform that is a walled garden.

Microsoft Windows is an open platform that is open to running whatever software you want, while Xbox is a walled garden.

That doesn't mean that Google can fraudulently market an open platform and then close it after driving competing platforms out of the market without running afoul of antitrust law.

However, if Google wants to create a new platform that is a walled garden, as long as they are honest with users about what they are selling, that would be perfectly legal everywhere except the EU.

What? The parent comment alleges that your claim that Google engaged in fraudulent marketing is false, but your reply just restates your original claim without addressing their argument.

> except the EU

Also Australia, Japan, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, with others sure to follow.

> That doesn't mean that Google can fraudulently market an open platform and then close it after driving competing platforms out of the market without running afoul of antitrust law.

But they haven't done these things. If they violate the law, they will have violated the law. Google hasn't imposed the discussed requirements yet. However, even if they imposed them today, I do not believe they currently advertise that they allow side-loading.

Also the commercial market for sideloading is basically nil. I'm not sure what antitrust angle you'd take here -- whose market would they unfairly disadvantaging? Basically all antitrust actions thus far regarding mobile platforms have been regarding their gigantic commercial app stores. That is entirely unaffected by these changes.

> However, if Google wants to create a new platform that is a walled garden, as long as they are honest with users about what they are selling, that would be perfectly legal everywhere except the EU.

The policy they are proposing is the same policy that Apple recently switched to in order to comply with EU regulations! Apple is doing it precisely because it complies with the EU's demands.

> Basically all antitrust actions thus far regarding mobile platforms have been regarding their gigantic commercial app stores. That is entirely unaffected by these changes.

This is more or less true. Epic Games is most likely not going to fight Google any further in the U.S., assuming they actually get what the recent injunction promised them (which does not include unrestricted sideloading, but does include better protections for verified third party app stores on Android).

But at the same time, I don't think it's invalid to say that antitrust law provides a pretty solid framework for a hypothetical "sideloading mandate". The EU's Digital Markets Act comes very close, but falls short of declaring exactly what a "third party app store" should be. That is, "an independent source of applications without any oversight whatsoever from $BIG_TECH_CO".

However, they probably specifically avoided doing that because they knew it would lead to malware on iOS, and a huge win for Apple in the court of public opinion. Will the EU or any of the other regulators actually ever go any further than "third party app stores"? Probably not, to be honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com