Tencent accused vivo of restricting users from downloading "app treasure"; Tencent app treasure has sued the entire mobile phone manufacturer, except Apple
Text/Intellectual
Two Shenzhen tech giants chose to sue Tencent, the country's largest social networking app company, in Jinan against the new branch of the domestic mobile phone market in 2021.
TechWeb was the first to report on the lawsuit, which will be held in the Jinan Intermediate Court on May 20.
Over the past few years, the Jinan Intermediate Court has become a place of litigation for important intellectual property cases in China and around the world. Among the well-known cases on the official website of the court, it includes two lawsuits involving Tencent in 2019 and 2020, one of which is also regarded as a well-known case in the country.
Tencent's litigation is quite familiar, and it is because of Tencent App Bao.
The iPhone also banned Tencent App Bao
In the TechWeb article, "It is reported" mentioned that Tencent App Bao v vivo uses the underlying advantages of the mobile phone to restrict users from normally downloading and installing Tencent App Bao by inserting pop-up windows, text, buttons, setting risk detection, etc., and at the same time inducing users to download or install applications to the vivo app store, so as to obtain more traffic and commercial benefits.
In the past few years, Tencent has sued Huawei, OPPO and all other Android manufacturers because of the download and installation of AppBao, and only owes Apple. For users, how much value does Tencent App Treasure have, and is it worth Tencent's enthusiasm for so much?
Tencent loves to tell the Android king
In 2016, Tencent App Bao sued Huawei for almost identical grounds, when Tencent chose to conduct it in the Chongqing First Intermediate Court, which ruled in favor of Tencent's lawsuit in the first instance. In 2017, Tencent sued vivo and OPPO in Nanjing and Wuhan for app bao and mobile phone butler, respectively.
From this point of view, the law of the selection practice of Tencent's sue is to choose to sue the mobile phone market leader of the previous year.
Mobile phone users can download the same application from Tencent app treasure, mobile phone manufacturers app store, such as WeChat, Meituan, Didi, etc., the most direct difference as Tencent said, the download platform is different, Meituan, Didi need to pay for this search, download the object is different.
Directly speaking, vivo and Tencent app treasure can search and download for each user to obtain advertising revenue. The same is true of Apple and other Big Android manufacturers. For Android mobile phones, Internet advertising revenue, including this kind of app pre-installation and app promotion, has become almost all of their advertising revenue sources.
The direct conflict of interest with mobile phone manufacturers is also an important reason for the market to look down on third-party application platforms such as Tencent App Bao, Pea Pod, Kuan, tapTap and so on.
The third-party app store platform that is "restricted" by vivo is not just Tencent App Bao. A few months ago, there was an interesting test conducted by consumer media and found that Vivo limited the above 4 major third-party application platforms.
Apple, Huawei, and OPPO restricted 3 of them, allowing Cool to download them from their respective app stores.
In overseas markets, the Android camp revolves around the competition for download platforms, including Google. Google's own Google Play, and Samsung, vivo, OPPO and other Android giants manufacturers "official APP", who is the authentic APP Store.
Many years ago, it was precisely because Google voluntarily gave up the Chinese market that it achieved a huge source of interest for the app stores of various mobile phone companies in China.
In the field of app stores, whether it is Tencent, Apple, Google or Huawei, vivo, OPPO and Xiaomi, most of their choices have nothing to do with users, nor with the so-called principle of fair competition in the market. This is a pure, one-of-a-kind distribution of the business cake of the Million Dollar Stock.
Winning or losing lies only in their respective strengths. It is also difficult to hope that the judgments of judicial organs such as the Jinan Intermediate Court can really solve the problem once and for all. We can only rely on new smart hardware entrepreneurs to create a new service that replaces the current App Store model for many years.
The app store model does not compete fairly
The competition between mobile phone giants such as Apple and Vivo and Internet application platforms such as Google, Tencent, Meta, Epic, and Spotify has always been the focus of market discussion in recent years. In this regard, the interests are different and the positions are completely different.
With the development of the iPhone and Android manufacturers' own App stores, the shrinking living space and value of third-party app stores are already an indisputable fact, and third-party app stores have an insurmountable gap in privacy supervision and data security.
However, the app store experience of iOS and Android manufacturers themselves has not been better. Especially Android manufacturers, App Store, browser waterfalls, has become its golden shackles on the road of innovation, the greater the benefits, the more Android manufacturers do not give up this part of the income, they indulge in it.
For this topic, the "Zhiwu" team has personally witnessed several of these conflicts. From the user's point of view, the current app store model, whether it is Apple or Huawei, Vivo and other Android manufacturers, as well as third-party app stores, the experience is not ideal.
The "Zhiwu" team has extensively discussed the future possibilities of this model with some regulatory authorities and heads of mobile phone companies. Our view is that whether it is an iPhone or an Android giant, now is perhaps the best time to improve this model.
In the field of automobiles, the British "Economist" has given a very vivid view, the future of the automobile industry is drive, no longer Selling Cars. The direct understanding is that since all cars become autonomous, what users really need is rides from A to B, not all kinds of strange cars.
The Economist ignores the personal consumer goods of the automotive products themselves, as well as the characteristic ostentatious attributes, which are left alone. However, the conclusion itself is worth pondering.
The combination of new software, hardware, and services can say goodbye to the App store model
Between iOS, Android app store, and third-party application platforms, is there really a difference between the downloads of Didi, Meituan, WeChat, and King of Glory?
What users really need is taxi service, ticket booking service, meal ordering service, express delivery service, not the software downloaded from the app treasure and vivo store, and the user does not care whether Didi pays vivo or tencent.
The service provider does not want to pay vivo, nor does it want to pay Tencent, the situation is forced, and it has to pay. The cost of this channel expansion has become a barrier for Didi and Meituan to restrict other innovative applications, at least new applications and small application manufacturers.
Since Tesla can integrate insurance and integrate the taxi fleet business in the future, can iPhone and vivo directly integrate ticket booking and meal ordering? Is it possible to integrate news and games directly?
Is there an "autonomous driving service" of its own on the phone? Is the biggest use of mobile phones really camera machines?
In fact, mobile phone manufacturers have integrated some businesses, such as the payment business closest to the user's income, as well as the rigid demand business that can be directly subscribed to by the user to pay for music. However, mobile phone manufacturers are currently disdainful, at least no one is willing to really integrate applications and change applications.
The most important thing is that no Android manufacturer is really willing to give up this simple and rude "bidding ranking" advertising revenue to really have "subscribers" instead of looking for buyers.