[icpmoles]

Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps app. On top of the fine Google will need to provide the SDK to integrate their app with Android Auto.

[bsdubernerd]

And a quick reminder to everybody else that walled gardens don't actually help the consumer. They only arbitrarily restrict choice, they don't actually improve security (if any, that's provided by the sandboxing, not by the store "review").

If this company (ENEL) wasn't a huge state-wide electric company (inheriting their power and ties from the previous state-owned monopoly) how many chances do you think they had to fight?

As a small fish you're just dumped.

[oblio]

Walled gardens are just security theater. The App Store revenue was $72bn in 2020, yet the review time for an app is a few hours. App reviewers barely have any qualifications, they're just "call center operators" running off a script.

[zepto]

> And a quick reminder to everybody else that walled gardens don't actually help the consumer.

This is not supported by the article at all.

> They only arbitrarily restrict choice,

This statement is total bullshit. Even if a few scams get through, and even if Google has abused its store, it’s not only arbitrary.

> they don't actually improve security (if any, that's provided by the sandboxing, not by the store "review").

No, Sandboxing cannot stop large classes of well known social engineering scams.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/app-store-stopped-ove...

Here is data proving that walled gardens do in fact protect consumers greatly.

You don’t have to like them, and of course there are downsides, but let’s not pretend there are no benefits.

[dalbasal]

IMO, walled gardens are besides the point. Whatever the working definition of walled garden, we can find some consumer or situation for whom it arguably makes sense.

The real problem isn't the wall, it's the gate. Adwords, Android, FB, Twitter, Spotify, Steam... those are all about controlling the gate. At that point, others do the work and the gatekeeper makes the profit.

[WanderPanda]

It’s not all black and white. Walled gardens can have upsides for the consumer. Ruling that out discredits your argument

[PaulHoule]

When Apple's App store first came out consumers were sour about a decade of "crapp(s)" on Microsoft Windows.

That is, you pretty much expected to download software and have it trash your machine on a regular basis.

Things are better today, half of that is people realizing that it has to get better ("national security" today, but it's much bigger than national in scope) and the other half is people realizing it is possible to get better, and Apple's App store is one reason for that.

---

Improvements in HW and SW are what helped Microsoft, not the Microsoft store -- since Win 8 I think I've had a Windows machine where it was really possible to download third-party apps from the Microsoft store about 10% of machine*years. Part of that is that it was disabled on corporate laptops I've used, the other part is that the metadata database for the Microsoft store gets corrupted on a regular basis.

I've contacted Microsofties about that and what they tell me is that I should delete my account on my computer and then reinstall the account and spend or two work days reconfigurings all of the "normal" Windows apps that I used on an everyday basis (Firefox, Jetbrains, Creative Cloud, Python, ...) I tell them "there's a procedure to rebuild the metadata database because I've see the database get rebuilt when the six month OS updates happen" and they act as if they didn't hear anything.

For that matter Microsoft seems to be a counter-example to "the power of monopoly".

For instance there are several third-party gaming "app" stores for Windows such as Steam. One thing they all have in common is that they work.

When Win 8 came out DropBox and a number of imitators had apps that worked for Windows. There was one DropBox imitator that didn't work, and that was Microsoft's OneDrive. Office was jiggered to push you to save files to OneDrive, but if you were saving files to OneDrive you could frequently NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE FILES AT ALL!

To add insult to injury, this would also trigger harassment from Word the next time I open it about the files it didn't let me save. It's like this

https://tonyortega.org/2021/04/12/scientology-answers-danny-...

I guess it proves that running an "app store" without brand awareness doesn't lead to industry dominance.

[permo-w]

I agree that the downsides outweigh the positives, but they do provide security to a certain extent.

For example, you can give your grandma an iPad or a chromebook, and there’s very little chance of her accidentally installing x nasty malware.

Give her a proper laptop, and at any one time she’s about 6 clicks from something dodgy, especially if she’s on social media.

[rattlesnakedave]

As an Apple consumer, having a “walled garden” is great for UX, IMO. I don’t have to deal with a ton of shitty wallet apps, everything is in one App Store, etc.

I find this much preferable to the situation on Android.

[dan-robertson]

> The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps app

Should this say “…ruled it was because…”? I can’t figure out the reason for the fine otherwise.

[simonh]

Just to explain for non-native anglophones, I think what they meant was "gave out a rule", but in idiomatic English "ruled something out" means it has been eliminated as a possibility.

[HALtheWise]

The really sad thing about this case is that there is _no way_ that Google made anything like $100M from the charging station finder in Google Maps in Italy. That functionality reeks to me of something made by a small group of Googlers because they legitimately care about promoting electric cars and making life easier for their owners, not because Google particularly cares if they dominate the electric vehicle charging station finding market. Now that the functionality has cost them $100M and however much effort it takes to make a regulator-approved SDK for Android Auto, I'm worried that the lawyers at the company will just shut down that feature and others like it, which would be a net loss for users.

[klmadfejno]

That's only sad if all they did was make a product and not share it with others. They also rejected a competitor access to their monopoly on the service. It's supposed to sting. Otherwise they would just do this shit all the time.

[ysavir]

So it's okay for companies like google to abuse their market position so long as we think they're doing it for the greater good?

[seaman1921]

exactly, this is not the reinforcement you want to give the big tech - putting fines for the actually useful stuff using crappy antitrust arguments? Come on.

This will just encourage them to kill all the genuinely useful stuff they do because honestly their legal teams can't spend hours vetting all of these small features and apps which provide immense value to certain subsets of users. And for what ? The shitty JuicePass app with under 2.5 rating.

[PaulHoule]

What are the rules for Android Auto?

Distracted driving is a big problem, but my experience is that people have superstitious ideas about what is safe and what is dangerous in areas like that.

You can certainly do experiments, and the conclusion you seem to reach is that you're in a lot safer with a car that has physical buttons for the audio, heat, etc. (Had "luxury" carmakers been on the ball five years or so they would have kicked the infotainment systems to the curb and would be giving customers a premium experience today -- how many $1000 does Android Auto knock off the resale value of your car?)

[darksaints]

Totally. I'm maybe a week or two away from buying a Model 3, but the thing I keep coming back to is the whole "everything is controlled by a touchscreen" crap. Even when physical controls are not designed perfectly, you can still get used to them to the point where they are muscle memory and no longer a distraction. No matter how awesome they are, touch screens will never not be a distraction.

[908B64B197]

I'm on Google's side here.

I want Android Auto to know what type of plug I have and Google Maps to just show me all compatible chargers. And possibly handle payments. Like what Tesla has been doing for years [0].

Now there's some government developed app to duplicate that functionality but only for their special snowflake network and only in their jurisdiction. Just crossed the border from France to Italy? Install this app (is it in international app stores as well? Do I have to switch my phone to that country?). Ohh now it has it's own map but no navigation so I'm switching back and forth between that and Google Maps.

[0] https://youtu.be/hA_B7qPyUDA?t=1145

[Chymor]

That’s not really what it’s about. It’s about if they can do that and throw out competing apps doing the same thing. Or if you will have the ability to choose an other app if you don’t like google.

Of cause integration and ease of use become harder if there’s multiple networks and apps, but that’s separate from the question if they should be allowed by google.

[gentleman11]

Not sure why nobody else is asking this, but what is the evidence? Did an investigation reveal that this actually was the reason for the App Store rejection?

[toyg]

This was an antitrust ruling, so chances are that the process was something like:

- app developer (here, the giant state-backed energy company ENEL) complains to antitrust authority about getting denied access to store

- authority asks Google to justify itself

- Google makes a very weak argument, refuses to disclose the internal decision-making process that resulted in blocking access

- authority goes “oh really?”, proceeds to slap Google with a fine

Now Google can decide whether they want to take this to court (which, being Italy, will probably take 5 to 10 years); pay the fine and allow ENEL in; or just ignore the ruling and dare the state to slap them harder (which again, would probably mean a good 5+ years will pass before sanctions are actually enacted, but might result in higher fines).

[jeffbee]

It can't be that simple because there is working ChargePoint integration with Android Auto. If they were just blocking 3rd party apps that wouldn't exist.

[Pxtl]

"ruled" or "ruled out"? Because those have opposing meanings.

[ArkanExplorer]

A true penalty would have been to limit Google Play to 5% commissions for any purchasers or developers in Italy.

[snambi]

companies like google needed to be spilt up and made as smaller entities. These companies are a threat to humanity.

[genericacct]

The fact that ENEL is owned by the employers of the ruling judges is just a coincidence.

[mikro2nd]

Are you suggesting that the Italian judiciary is incapable of acting independently and impartially?

[carlob]

ENEL has been privatized a long time ago and the Italian government has just a plurality stake.

[matsemann]

Just like all judges and prosecutors are employed by the people?

[artiszt]

assuming this to be true and of factual, in praxi [thus procedural], significance in this case, then of course Google hasn't done any wrong ?