Hundreds of billions. That's pretty damning. Wonder who got how much.
Epic, though, presented evidence asserting the notion that Google welcomes competition as a pretense, citing the hundreds of billions of dollars it has doled out to companies, such as game maker Activision Blizzard, to discourage them from opening rival app stores.
Hundreds of billions. That's pretty damning. Wonder who got how much.
On the other hand, a rival open source app store called f-droid does exist. Any idea why Google allows them to work and hasn't tried to stop them by offering money? They're also technically a...
On the other hand, a rival open source app store called f-droid does exist. Any idea why Google allows them to work and hasn't tried to stop them by offering money? They're also technically a rival or competitor.
Yeah, 99% of the success of anything and anyone is marketing, including bundling deals. F-Droid isn't bundled or really advertised, it'll never be a threat. But, uh, how is SHAREit an app store?
Yeah, 99% of the success of anything and anyone is marketing, including bundling deals. F-Droid isn't bundled or really advertised, it'll never be a threat.
SHAREit Game Store is a high-quality Android app store serving countries in the Middle East & Southeast Asia. SHAREit has more than 1.8 billion users worldwide with 500 million+ MAU in more than 200 countries and regions around the world. Developers across the globe can submit games to SHAREit and begin selling in these large mobile markets.
For Google, it's lip service. They allow f-droid to exist because it has next to no market share, and allows them to continue making the claim that Android is an open platform. If a major OEM...
For Google, it's lip service. They allow f-droid to exist because it has next to no market share, and allows them to continue making the claim that Android is an open platform.
If a major OEM tried bundling F-Droid on an Android smartphone, Google would come after them.
I suppose Google isn't losing much revenue from those apps being elsewhere, probably not worth trying to pay them off, but if Epic were to open an EGS app store and move Fortnite there entirely,...
I suppose Google isn't losing much revenue from those apps being elsewhere, probably not worth trying to pay them off, but if Epic were to open an EGS app store and move Fortnite there entirely, that'd be a huge loss of revenue.
A big appeal of Android is being able to use your own device, Google blocking third party apps or otherwise hemorrhaging their functionality (and therefore third party repos) would cost them in public opinion and market share, and also make arguments for their anticompetitive practices much stronger.
Even though this was a jury case, I knew Google lost as soon as the judge was mad a them for deleting a bunch of evidence. They made themselves looked guilty and there was all the secret contracts...
Even though this was a jury case, I knew Google lost as soon as the judge was mad a them for deleting a bunch of evidence.
They made themselves looked guilty and there was all the secret contracts they had with manufacturers.
It's actually the default for all internal communication to auto-delete. Chat logs delete after 24 hours or 30 days when history is turned on. Emails delete after a month IIRC. If you want to keep...
It's actually the default for all internal communication to auto-delete. Chat logs delete after 24 hours or 30 days when history is turned on. Emails delete after a month IIRC. If you want to keep an email around for longer there's a magic tag named "Indef" to keep one message around forever. Enabling the 30 day chat window by default requires you to enter a magic Google Group. All of this is communicated to you informally when you're new.
It's pretty frustrating when you can't look up that message someone sent you on how to make something work just because Google's trying to sustain its monopolies for one more quarter.
Didn’t know that was the default, I had read the article where the judge was chastising Google for it and had that quote from the CEO. Also wow can’t imagine not having a backup of all my work...
Didn’t know that was the default, I had read the article where the judge was chastising Google for it and had that quote from the CEO.
Also wow can’t imagine not having a backup of all my work communications I can’t count how many time we have had to go back to old conversations because people said they didn’t know about a procedures, said we didnt tell them….
When Google Chats was sold to a company that I no longer work for (thank goodness) the lack of permanence was pitched as a feature because if a piece of information was important enough to need it...
Also wow can’t imagine not having a backup of all my work communications
When Google Chats was sold to a company that I no longer work for (thank goodness) the lack of permanence was pitched as a feature because if a piece of information was important enough to need it later, it shouldn't be archived in a chat or an email, it should go into a knowledge base. Which is not wholly wrong, but also it turns out that you often don't know that a piece of information was important enough to document when you get it, it's often not until much later that you find yourself wishing you still had that information. I was already putting the important stuff in the wiki, all Google Chat did was make it impossible to find things later that I didn't know were important at the time they were sent to me.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it makes it REALLY hard to nail down written confirmation of things when your copy as an individual contributor is gone after 30 days and only people with "Legal Hold" status (usually managers and above) will retain a copy.
Like, I can understand the potential genuine security risks for a company like Google for being exploited via obtained chat logs and email. And it's a good thing to have data retention policies in...
Like, I can understand the potential genuine security risks for a company like Google for being exploited via obtained chat logs and email. And it's a good thing to have data retention policies in place...it insures you are clear to remove your TBs of logs without legal repurcussions.
But it also reeks of trying to cover your tracks, especially such a short window. Email could just as easily exonerate in a legal case, unless they were reasonably certain more conversations than not would be damning. There's plenty of large companies that don't have such a policy.
Companies as large as Google really should be mandated to maintain encrypted backups for both email and chat, for at least 5 years, possibly held in escrow, for inevitable legal proceedings. Especially since Google's entire business model revolves around archiving everything on everyone, forever.
Yeah they only do that on court order. There would be times when we’d have a chat channel that would have history enabled (presumably more than 30 days worth) because an exec or employee engaged...
Yeah they only do that on court order. There would be times when we’d have a chat channel that would have history enabled (presumably more than 30 days worth) because an exec or employee engaged in a lawsuit would post a message there, activating some hidden data retention policy.
Ironically the best feature of using google chat in the workplace, your chats/spaces become living wikis of dealing with past issues.
It's pretty frustrating when you can't look up that message someone sent you on how to make something work just because Google's trying to sustain its monopolies for one more quarter.
Ironically the best feature of using google chat in the workplace, your chats/spaces become living wikis of dealing with past issues.
Love this on Slack too. My company's got chat history going back like 5 years and for most of the issues I've run into, someone else has run into it in the past.
Love this on Slack too. My company's got chat history going back like 5 years and for most of the issues I've run into, someone else has run into it in the past.
The headline definitely shocked me at first but reading into it, I'm actually not too surprised by this decision. I read a Twitter thread recently about why Samsung doesn't have a separate...
The headline definitely shocked me at first but reading into it, I'm actually not too surprised by this decision. I read a Twitter thread recently about why Samsung doesn't have a separate Android-based OS and why its popular Good Lock customization suite isn't included by default. I know Twitter isn't the best source of truth, the thread also cites 0 sources for the information it provides. However, searching for the agreement names below brings up SEC and EU anti-trust documents and articles so I'm inclined to trust it. That thread sheds a lot of light on how Android maintained its global market share dominance and just how much control Google has over these OEMs.
In short, after Android quickly rose to 72% mobile market share in 2011, Google forced manufacturers to sign a "Anti-fragmentation Agreement" to stop them from creating a fork of AOSP and installing it on their own devices. This also stopped them from distributing SDKs for said AOSP forks, essentially guaranteeing these platforms would fail. This agreement was then made a prerequisite for other agreements like the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" and "Platform Access Agreement" which gives manufacturers the right to Google Mobile Services (including the Google Play Store and popular Google apps) and the access to the source code of the latest Android version 6-months before the open source release.
Surprising to me, these agreements are apparently legal (in both the US and the EU) if they are "objectively justified". However, in the EU document I linked below, the EU notes that Google haven't been able to really justify it.
Hundreds of billions. That's pretty damning. Wonder who got how much.
On the other hand, a rival open source app store called f-droid does exist. Any idea why Google allows them to work and hasn't tried to stop them by offering money? They're also technically a rival or competitor.
Here’s the market share of all preloaded Android app stores, according to Epic’s expert: As of July 2021
Yeah, 99% of the success of anything and anyone is marketing, including bundling deals. F-Droid isn't bundled or really advertised, it'll never be a threat.
But, uh, how is SHAREit an app store?
https://developer.shareitgames.com/ maybe?
More info from Unity:
https://unity.com/partners/unity-distribution-portal/shareit-game-store
For Google, it's lip service. They allow f-droid to exist because it has next to no market share, and allows them to continue making the claim that Android is an open platform.
If a major OEM tried bundling F-Droid on an Android smartphone, Google would come after them.
I suppose Google isn't losing much revenue from those apps being elsewhere, probably not worth trying to pay them off, but if Epic were to open an EGS app store and move Fortnite there entirely, that'd be a huge loss of revenue.
A big appeal of Android is being able to use your own device, Google blocking third party apps or otherwise hemorrhaging their functionality (and therefore third party repos) would cost them in public opinion and market share, and also make arguments for their anticompetitive practices much stronger.
Even though this was a jury case, I knew Google lost as soon as the judge was mad a them for deleting a bunch of evidence.
They made themselves looked guilty and there was all the secret contracts they had with manufacturers.
It's actually the default for all internal communication to auto-delete. Chat logs delete after 24 hours or 30 days when history is turned on. Emails delete after a month IIRC. If you want to keep an email around for longer there's a magic tag named "Indef" to keep one message around forever. Enabling the 30 day chat window by default requires you to enter a magic Google Group. All of this is communicated to you informally when you're new.
It's pretty frustrating when you can't look up that message someone sent you on how to make something work just because Google's trying to sustain its monopolies for one more quarter.
May this court ruling be the first of many.
Didn’t know that was the default, I had read the article where the judge was chastising Google for it and had that quote from the CEO.
Also wow can’t imagine not having a backup of all my work communications I can’t count how many time we have had to go back to old conversations because people said they didn’t know about a procedures, said we didnt tell them….
When Google Chats was sold to a company that I no longer work for (thank goodness) the lack of permanence was pitched as a feature because if a piece of information was important enough to need it later, it shouldn't be archived in a chat or an email, it should go into a knowledge base. Which is not wholly wrong, but also it turns out that you often don't know that a piece of information was important enough to document when you get it, it's often not until much later that you find yourself wishing you still had that information. I was already putting the important stuff in the wiki, all Google Chat did was make it impossible to find things later that I didn't know were important at the time they were sent to me.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it makes it REALLY hard to nail down written confirmation of things when your copy as an individual contributor is gone after 30 days and only people with "Legal Hold" status (usually managers and above) will retain a copy.
Like, I can understand the potential genuine security risks for a company like Google for being exploited via obtained chat logs and email. And it's a good thing to have data retention policies in place...it insures you are clear to remove your TBs of logs without legal repurcussions.
But it also reeks of trying to cover your tracks, especially such a short window. Email could just as easily exonerate in a legal case, unless they were reasonably certain more conversations than not would be damning. There's plenty of large companies that don't have such a policy.
Companies as large as Google really should be mandated to maintain encrypted backups for both email and chat, for at least 5 years, possibly held in escrow, for inevitable legal proceedings. Especially since Google's entire business model revolves around archiving everything on everyone, forever.
Yeah they only do that on court order. There would be times when we’d have a chat channel that would have history enabled (presumably more than 30 days worth) because an exec or employee engaged in a lawsuit would post a message there, activating some hidden data retention policy.
to be fair, if the judge is pissed at them for deleting shit Insuspect there was some form of court-ordered discovery going on.
Ironically the best feature of using google chat in the workplace, your chats/spaces become living wikis of dealing with past issues.
Love this on Slack too. My company's got chat history going back like 5 years and for most of the issues I've run into, someone else has run into it in the past.
The headline definitely shocked me at first but reading into it, I'm actually not too surprised by this decision. I read a Twitter thread recently about why Samsung doesn't have a separate Android-based OS and why its popular Good Lock customization suite isn't included by default. I know Twitter isn't the best source of truth, the thread also cites 0 sources for the information it provides. However, searching for the agreement names below brings up SEC and EU anti-trust documents and articles so I'm inclined to trust it. That thread sheds a lot of light on how Android maintained its global market share dominance and just how much control Google has over these OEMs.
In short, after Android quickly rose to 72% mobile market share in 2011, Google forced manufacturers to sign a "Anti-fragmentation Agreement" to stop them from creating a fork of AOSP and installing it on their own devices. This also stopped them from distributing SDKs for said AOSP forks, essentially guaranteeing these platforms would fail. This agreement was then made a prerequisite for other agreements like the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" and "Platform Access Agreement" which gives manufacturers the right to Google Mobile Services (including the Google Play Store and popular Google apps) and the access to the source code of the latest Android version 6-months before the open source release.
Surprising to me, these agreements are apparently legal (in both the US and the EU) if they are "objectively justified". However, in the EU document I linked below, the EU notes that Google haven't been able to really justify it.
[1] https://twitter.com/Tech_Reve/status/1711584778712228168
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/el/MEMO_16_1484