I think Google really made a strategic mistake by copying Apple on the payment restrictions. It kills me to see Apple and Google lumped together as "monopolies" when Google's policy is IMHO 100x less monopolistic than Apple's given you can sideload and use completely different app stores, and enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device. But the payment restrictions are definitely monopolistic-style abuse. Had they not have copied that, I don't think they'd be under this microscope and losing lawsuits and what not.
It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost, when Google is far less restrictive. IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior. But ironically, the reason G execs were in the position of having to buy off people and make deals to stifle competition is because of their looser reins over the platform. If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place.
stratechery has a reasonable explanation in one of the recent articles :
"That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal.
This goes back to the point I made above: Google’s fundamental legal challenge with Android is that it sought to have its cake and eat it too: it wanted all of the shine of open source and all of the reach and network effects of being a horizontal operating system provider and all of the control and profits of Apple, but the only way to do that was to pretty clearly (in my opinion) violate antitrust law."
The key is 'unreasonably restrained trade' - Any OEM was eligible to use Android, but what google did was restrict competition by 'entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade'
> It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost
When Google chose to open the Android OS, it created a marketplace for Android devices which it attempted to control by the use of anticompetitive contracts and actions.
The parallels with Microsoft and Windows are obvious. Microsoft has been found guilty of anticompetitive actions in the Windows PC marketplace it created by opening up Windows.
Yet Microsoft also has the XBox, which it did not open up to other hardware makers and which is just as much of a walled garden as iOS.
There have been no legal ramifications of Microsoft choosing to be the sole maker it's own product, nor of having it's product be a walled garden.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden.
> IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior.
It mainly came down to the fact that they were in different courtrooms and the higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results (possibly by overturning one of them).
It's kind of an interesting case study in the arbitrariness of the law. The most important question in either case is if excluding competing app stores is permissible. It's obviously anti-competitive, but doing anti-competitive things is sometimes allowed if you have a legitimate justification. Apple's argument is presumably that they need to for security. This is, of course, BS, because a user who wanted Apple to vet all of their apps could still choose not to install any from outside of Apple's store even if Apple didn't prohibit them from doing so.
Google could make the same claim -- they have to discourage these filthy competitors because some of them might not be selective enough in what they include, so suppressing them improves security -- and it would be equally BS. But then you uncover some emails that make them look unsympathetic, or admitting that the pretext is a farce, and now it's less likely they get away with the charade.
The root of the problem here is that the rule that you can do something anti-competitive if you have an excuse has the potential to swallow the entire law. "Our competitors are smelly and vile and we have to protect our customers from interacting with them even if the customer explicitly wants to do that" is a generic excuse that could be used to justify any anti-competitive behavior. That's easier to see if you can read some emails conceding the underlying motive, but it's true in either case. Hopefully the higher courts will be able to see that in both cases once they've seen it in one of them.
The jury found that Google created a market of Android app distribution, and then they squashed competition in that market.
No just market exists for Apple (it's an entirely closed and self-contained ecosystem) so there was no need to 'squash competition' - it just doesn't exist!
> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device
Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can build an app in Xcode and install it on your own device. You can’t distribute that app publicly though.
> G execs were in the position of having to buy off people
There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is.
> If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place.
Difference here is that Apple manufactures and controls all the devices but Google does not.
When Google’s decisions impact other manufactures or they even are dependent on it, it becomes monopoly problem. But Apple does not impact anybody else.
Google couldn't have been restrictive from the start because of how Android came and solidified itself. Google tapped and profitted heavily on opensource, whereas apple had not only their OS but all the hardware developed in-house, without external collaboration for the most part.
The scenario surrounding iOS history lends itself pretty well for solid walled gardens
I don't understand why anyone uses Apple. I feel like they've all been brainwashed. Ubuntu is way better, especially for tech-savvy users.
Only times I used Apple was at work because I was forced to. I was forced to use Apple by 3 different companies. It's essentially a cult. I hated using it and it slowed me down significantly.
The tech industry is essentially a giant PsyOp and only brainwashed, highly suggestible people can participate. I think governments should treat these megacorps as what they are; foreign intelligence operations to gain power over citizens.
> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device
That's a great way to fail hardware attestation. It makes my bank's app assume I'm a fraudster and refuse me service.
Google absolutely deserves to be lumped in with the likes of Apple because of stuff like this. They sell people "open" systems and then they punish them when they "tamper" with the system.
I can only hope some government out there will put an end to their little digital fiefdoms.
The difference is that apple is and always was, explicitly a closed platform. Take it or leave it.
Google on the other hand, tried to market android as an open platform with eg many OEMs producing hardware for it, but the reality is that they are anything but.
I mean you said it: Google sold Android has one thing but secretly stifled it from actually being that thing. Apple doesn't even offer iOS as a product, it's an integrated product component developed in-house just like their A-series chips. They don't offer the App Store as a product, it's an integrated product-component just like the Camera.
Apple took the console approach and Google took the Wintel-ish approach, and that led to a different series of business decisions that created a different set of market conditions involving a different set of business partners that created a different set of facts and a different set of case records when Epic sued them both. It's not like Apple didn't put anything in writing, but the stuff that made them look bad only made them look bad in the PR sense, not a legal sense. Apple's restrictions on the iPhone are technologically and contractually enforced through a standard agreement that every developer agrees to, whereas Android doesn't have any technological restrictions, just Google's lawyers going around paying off would-be competitors to not compete with Google Play which is a huge difference given that Android is supposedly open and that was one of its original selling points. Personally I still don't think Google should have lost their case with Epic at the District level, maybe hammered a bit under State antitrust law enforcement for the payoffs to not compete with them, but not lost to Epic; but they did lose their case at the District level to Epic so that's completely on them.
I read that apple case was heard by a judge and Google case by a jury. Apparently a jury tends to be less rigorous at interpretation of laws than a judge?! Not surprising (I saw the movie 8 (or 12) angry men).
I have a web application with a lot of users. My users are happy to use the web. But because of better monetization options, I sometimes dabble with the idea to build a native mobile app.
Some years ago, I tried to build an Android app. It required an insane amount of tooling. Hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of stuff. GUI applications you have to use etc. I didn't even try to build an iOS app because that probably means you have to own a mac.
Is this still the same?
Or are there some linux command line tools these days I can use to convert a web app into an app that I can put on the Android/iOS app stores?
There are things like Cordova that make it a bit easier, but yes you need hundreds of MBs of stuff to compile and test. Debugging was a bit of a nightmare, though.
It is also possible to deploy to Apple with things like Github Actions without personally owning a Mac (and it can publish to Google too, naturally), but then testing is not trivial.
I know 90% of HN will disagree but there is a market opportunity here to make this better.
I tried to build an Android app. It required an insane amount of tooling. Hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of stuff. GUI applications you have to use etc.
FPGA developers snicker under their breath, but if you look closely you can see the tears welling up in their eyes...
I've had success with react native for deploying web type apps onto both ios and android. Expo really flattens the learning curve, it's something to grow out of for sure. I look at it like having an app vs wanting to have an app.
What do you use for front end for your web app? If you use React or Vue or something that does client-side rendering, you can often turn your app into a PWA fairly trivially by just adding a manifest. That is IMHO definitely the way to go as long as you don't need to use native functionality/APIs.
PWAs are still a little tougher on Apple since Apple holds the reins to their platform very tightly and doesn't want apps getting to users without going through "curation," so if iOS is an important market for you and your users will find you through the app store (rather than looking for you in the app store after finding you elsewhere), then a PWA may not be the best choice.
If you use server-side rendering, then it will of course be more work, but I'd still probably go the PWA route and write it in React or Vue. You already know JS so there's much less learning, and it's the most "write once run anywhere" that there is. You'll likely have to buy a mac though, although there are services you can "rent" one for building/signing/submitting to Apple.
React Native can be a good option as well, especially if you need to call native APIs or must be in the Apple store (Google Play Store can take you as a PWA). Most of your code can be js/ts so less learning curve, and you can generate a submittable app package that can go in the Apple store (and of course Google).
If you need to make extensive use of native APIs though, then a real native app may be better, though of course you will need a separate one for ios and android, and there's a lot of learning to do. And you'll definitely have to buy a mac.
Try to create a app like behavior in javascript and use a webview in android and ios to wrap your app. We do it like that. You will still have some native parts like push notifications, ads, social logins etc. But your ui render is web. Just make sure you have an app like experience. Doable these days.
The all the extra tooling makes it easier to make Android apps. Nothing is stopping you from downloading the Java JDK and Android SDK and running javac, d8, aapt2, zipalign, and apksigner yourself.
Can you imagine that we, Software Engineers in Kyrgyzstan, cannot publish apps on Google Play?! Google is blocking whole countries from publishing apps. This is not just about missing out on business opportunities; it's about being denied the basic platform to share our creativity and hard work with others! Unfair discrimination!
I am deeply frustrated by this situation. Even more so because I know there are Kyrgyz people working at Google, and one confided that the developers had made plans to include Kyrgyzstan in the list of allowed countries. However, these plans were inexplicably rolled back on orders from another department. This isn't just a technical hurdle; it feels like a deliberate sidelining of our nation and our talents.
I urge you to consider the struggles of smaller nations like ours. We don't ask for special treatment, just a fair chance to participate on the global stage.
> And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.
Can someone explain this line? If you publish an app on an alternative app store and someone downloads it on their de-googled phone, how in the world would Google prevent it from making a few API calls to Paypal?
I remember whent the DMCA was being proposed, there were arguments that the anti-circumvention protections would basically allow copyright holders to rewrite copyright law however they saw fit, with no regards to fair use.
With or without the DMCA, that's proven prophetic. Between cryptographic protections and server-based architecture, we're into an era where "owning" things now means whatever the seller wants it to mean.
I'm curious how much apple and Google will be allowed to charge for alternative payment methods. In Korea, google and apple (iirc) still can charge 26% of the transaction as their fee, making the change fairly moot (and even counter productive).
All of the DIY monopoly stuff which tech giants has invented will fall apart once one large country starts poking holes in it. It doesn't even has to be US (variant: specific states).
From right to repair to app store monopolies, they have invested in this walled garden, but they forgot to get permit to erect those walls in the first place.
I wonder how hard Apple is going to fight this. When laws start rolling out and iOS supports 3rd party stores and sideloading, will they region-lock it to just phones purchased in the EU and Japan? Will they tie it to Apple accounts somehow? I guess what I'm really wondering is what hoops I'll have to jump through as a US-located user to be able to sideload on my phone next year.
I'm curious to see how this shakes out. Will there be viable third-party app stores? Will we find that the gatekeepers added value in controlling quality? How many viable apps did they keep of the market for anticompetitive reasons? What does a more fair revenue cut look like?
I don’t want to sift through garbage and spyware on my phone, so I’ve always been a bit, “why is this a problem” about this whole situation, but recently had the thought, “I sure would like to not have to but the Civ VI expansions through both Steam and the App Store.”
It makes me wonder, if Apple and/or Google partnered with Valve if that would be enough good will, or if nobody will be happy until every device is a market for lemons.
For context, the Japanese market is as favorable to Apple as America is. Japan has a lot of very specific features that phones need to support[0] and Apple is usually ahead of Google on implementing them. This is in contrast to the EU where Android dominates because they used to be the only 'cheap' option.
[0] Most notably, Felica, the protocol used by all the contactless payment cards Japan's transit systems use. If you've ever been to Japan, you probably have a PASMO or Suica card[1] knocking around somewhere in your drawer. Japanese flipphones have supported that protocol since right when it came out. Apple added it at the same time they added Apple Pay and NFC support in the states.
Also, emoji used to be a Japan-only thing that required an NTT or AU SIM until westerners started noticing the funny faces and started writing copy-paste apps to get around the missing keyboard.
[1] Suica game but it's transit cards instead of watermelons
Ridiculous protectionism. Expected from the EU, but disappointing from Japan. People seemingly want their cake and to eat it too. If you don't like the locked down nature of the Apple ecosystem, buy a different product.
[+] [-] freedomben|2 years ago|reply
It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost, when Google is far less restrictive. IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior. But ironically, the reason G execs were in the position of having to buy off people and make deals to stifle competition is because of their looser reins over the platform. If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place.
[+] [-] udkl|2 years ago|reply
"That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal.
This goes back to the point I made above: Google’s fundamental legal challenge with Android is that it sought to have its cake and eat it too: it wanted all of the shine of open source and all of the reach and network effects of being a horizontal operating system provider and all of the control and profits of Apple, but the only way to do that was to pretty clearly (in my opinion) violate antitrust law."
The key is 'unreasonably restrained trade' - Any OEM was eligible to use Android, but what google did was restrict competition by 'entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade'
https://stratechery.com/2023/googles-true-moonshot/
[+] [-] GeekyBear|2 years ago|reply
When Google chose to open the Android OS, it created a marketplace for Android devices which it attempted to control by the use of anticompetitive contracts and actions.
The parallels with Microsoft and Windows are obvious. Microsoft has been found guilty of anticompetitive actions in the Windows PC marketplace it created by opening up Windows.
Yet Microsoft also has the XBox, which it did not open up to other hardware makers and which is just as much of a walled garden as iOS.
There have been no legal ramifications of Microsoft choosing to be the sole maker it's own product, nor of having it's product be a walled garden.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|2 years ago|reply
It mainly came down to the fact that they were in different courtrooms and the higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results (possibly by overturning one of them).
It's kind of an interesting case study in the arbitrariness of the law. The most important question in either case is if excluding competing app stores is permissible. It's obviously anti-competitive, but doing anti-competitive things is sometimes allowed if you have a legitimate justification. Apple's argument is presumably that they need to for security. This is, of course, BS, because a user who wanted Apple to vet all of their apps could still choose not to install any from outside of Apple's store even if Apple didn't prohibit them from doing so.
Google could make the same claim -- they have to discourage these filthy competitors because some of them might not be selective enough in what they include, so suppressing them improves security -- and it would be equally BS. But then you uncover some emails that make them look unsympathetic, or admitting that the pretext is a farce, and now it's less likely they get away with the charade.
The root of the problem here is that the rule that you can do something anti-competitive if you have an excuse has the potential to swallow the entire law. "Our competitors are smelly and vile and we have to protect our customers from interacting with them even if the customer explicitly wants to do that" is a generic excuse that could be used to justify any anti-competitive behavior. That's easier to see if you can read some emails conceding the underlying motive, but it's true in either case. Hopefully the higher courts will be able to see that in both cases once they've seen it in one of them.
[+] [-] madeofpalk|2 years ago|reply
No just market exists for Apple (it's an entirely closed and self-contained ecosystem) so there was no need to 'squash competition' - it just doesn't exist!
https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...
[+] [-] jahewson|2 years ago|reply
Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can build an app in Xcode and install it on your own device. You can’t distribute that app publicly though.
> G execs were in the position of having to buy off people
There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is.
[+] [-] nicce|2 years ago|reply
Difference here is that Apple manufactures and controls all the devices but Google does not.
When Google’s decisions impact other manufactures or they even are dependent on it, it becomes monopoly problem. But Apple does not impact anybody else.
[+] [-] gchamonlive|2 years ago|reply
The scenario surrounding iOS history lends itself pretty well for solid walled gardens
[+] [-] orenlindsey|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jongjong|2 years ago|reply
Only times I used Apple was at work because I was forced to. I was forced to use Apple by 3 different companies. It's essentially a cult. I hated using it and it slowed me down significantly.
The tech industry is essentially a giant PsyOp and only brainwashed, highly suggestible people can participate. I think governments should treat these megacorps as what they are; foreign intelligence operations to gain power over citizens.
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|2 years ago|reply
That's a great way to fail hardware attestation. It makes my bank's app assume I'm a fraudster and refuse me service.
Google absolutely deserves to be lumped in with the likes of Apple because of stuff like this. They sell people "open" systems and then they punish them when they "tamper" with the system.
I can only hope some government out there will put an end to their little digital fiefdoms.
[+] [-] shwouchk|2 years ago|reply
Google on the other hand, tried to market android as an open platform with eg many OEMs producing hardware for it, but the reality is that they are anything but.
[+] [-] SllX|2 years ago|reply
Apple took the console approach and Google took the Wintel-ish approach, and that led to a different series of business decisions that created a different set of market conditions involving a different set of business partners that created a different set of facts and a different set of case records when Epic sued them both. It's not like Apple didn't put anything in writing, but the stuff that made them look bad only made them look bad in the PR sense, not a legal sense. Apple's restrictions on the iPhone are technologically and contractually enforced through a standard agreement that every developer agrees to, whereas Android doesn't have any technological restrictions, just Google's lawyers going around paying off would-be competitors to not compete with Google Play which is a huge difference given that Android is supposedly open and that was one of its original selling points. Personally I still don't think Google should have lost their case with Epic at the District level, maybe hammered a bit under State antitrust law enforcement for the payoffs to not compete with them, but not lost to Epic; but they did lose their case at the District level to Epic so that's completely on them.
[+] [-] dilawar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TekMol|2 years ago|reply
Some years ago, I tried to build an Android app. It required an insane amount of tooling. Hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of stuff. GUI applications you have to use etc. I didn't even try to build an iOS app because that probably means you have to own a mac.
Is this still the same?
Or are there some linux command line tools these days I can use to convert a web app into an app that I can put on the Android/iOS app stores?
[+] [-] whstl|2 years ago|reply
It is also possible to deploy to Apple with things like Github Actions without personally owning a Mac (and it can publish to Google too, naturally), but then testing is not trivial.
I know 90% of HN will disagree but there is a market opportunity here to make this better.
[+] [-] tadfisher|2 years ago|reply
Tutorial here: https://developers.google.com/codelabs/pwa-in-play
[+] [-] mksybr|2 years ago|reply
I did end up installing Android Studio for the sdk and virtual machine installation, but I'd assume it could be done on the command line as well.
[+] [-] anordal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mouzogu|2 years ago|reply
i'm not doing that.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|2 years ago|reply
FPGA developers snicker under their breath, but if you look closely you can see the tears welling up in their eyes...
[+] [-] etchalon|2 years ago|reply
There are tools like that for iOS too, but you absolutely have to have a Mac.
[+] [-] eomgames|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freedomben|2 years ago|reply
PWAs are still a little tougher on Apple since Apple holds the reins to their platform very tightly and doesn't want apps getting to users without going through "curation," so if iOS is an important market for you and your users will find you through the app store (rather than looking for you in the app store after finding you elsewhere), then a PWA may not be the best choice.
If you use server-side rendering, then it will of course be more work, but I'd still probably go the PWA route and write it in React or Vue. You already know JS so there's much less learning, and it's the most "write once run anywhere" that there is. You'll likely have to buy a mac though, although there are services you can "rent" one for building/signing/submitting to Apple.
React Native can be a good option as well, especially if you need to call native APIs or must be in the Apple store (Google Play Store can take you as a PWA). Most of your code can be js/ts so less learning curve, and you can generate a submittable app package that can go in the Apple store (and of course Google).
If you need to make extensive use of native APIs though, then a real native app may be better, though of course you will need a separate one for ios and android, and there's a lot of learning to do. And you'll definitely have to buy a mac.
tldr: a PWA is (probably) the way to go
[+] [-] Alifatisk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layer8|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holoduke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charcircuit|2 years ago|reply
The all the extra tooling makes it easier to make Android apps. Nothing is stopping you from downloading the Java JDK and Android SDK and running javac, d8, aapt2, zipalign, and apksigner yourself.
[+] [-] rmbyrro|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beretguy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ederamen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|2 years ago|reply
The horror.
[+] [-] jumasheff|2 years ago|reply
I am deeply frustrated by this situation. Even more so because I know there are Kyrgyz people working at Google, and one confided that the developers had made plans to include Kyrgyzstan in the list of allowed countries. However, these plans were inexplicably rolled back on orders from another department. This isn't just a technical hurdle; it feels like a deliberate sidelining of our nation and our talents.
I urge you to consider the struggles of smaller nations like ours. We don't ask for special treatment, just a fair chance to participate on the global stage.
[+] [-] AC_8675309|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForkMeOnTinder|2 years ago|reply
Can someone explain this line? If you publish an app on an alternative app store and someone downloads it on their de-googled phone, how in the world would Google prevent it from making a few API calls to Paypal?
[+] [-] Pxtl|2 years ago|reply
With or without the DMCA, that's proven prophetic. Between cryptographic protections and server-based architecture, we're into an era where "owning" things now means whatever the seller wants it to mean.
[+] [-] tehlike|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thriftwy|2 years ago|reply
From right to repair to app store monopolies, they have invested in this walled garden, but they forgot to get permit to erect those walls in the first place.
[+] [-] shmerl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codedokode|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idle_zealot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] octacat|2 years ago|reply
But web apps are impossible to install on the phones, because apple/google love and push their native apps (love their 30% cut).
oh, people would say "but what is about resources?"... - many apps are just web-view anyway.
[+] [-] dehrmann|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layer8|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|2 years ago|reply
It makes me wonder, if Apple and/or Google partnered with Valve if that would be enough good will, or if nobody will be happy until every device is a market for lemons.
[+] [-] elryry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danieldrehmer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmeisthax|2 years ago|reply
[0] Most notably, Felica, the protocol used by all the contactless payment cards Japan's transit systems use. If you've ever been to Japan, you probably have a PASMO or Suica card[1] knocking around somewhere in your drawer. Japanese flipphones have supported that protocol since right when it came out. Apple added it at the same time they added Apple Pay and NFC support in the states.
Also, emoji used to be a Japan-only thing that required an NTT or AU SIM until westerners started noticing the funny faces and started writing copy-paste apps to get around the missing keyboard.
[1] Suica game but it's transit cards instead of watermelons
[+] [-] b0a04gl|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anomaly_|2 years ago|reply