Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#21

Post by neonhomer »

gumby wrote: post #13
mankash666 wrote: post #2

It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitr…

> On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed Their App Store is a monopoly, but I have friends who use iPhones and use Google's Inbox, Google's search app, Chrome browser, Google Maps and Waze etc and don't use the built-in defaults. I guess they like the hardware. So maybe I'm not interpreting "completely closed" correctly. > ... In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary restrictio…

I'm one of those people who gladly use an iPhone with mostly Google apps (namely Chrome, Gmail and Maps). My little experience with Android has always been negative.

The only real annoyance with iOS is you can't set Chrome nor Maps as default applications.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#22

Post by Veratyr »

freehunter wrote: post #19
colechristensen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple sells Apple phones with Apple iOS. Notgoogle sells Notgoogle phones with Google Android. Futzing with what another company does with it's product can get you anticompetitive interest. If you want to talk about Apple being anticompetetive talk about how you can't buy/rent movies on Google Play, Amazon, etc. apps on iOS. Even so, Apple has a much better legal stance for curating it's own market than Google (Alpha…

>you can't buy/rent movies on Google Play, Amazon, etc. apps on iOS Isn't that a choice Google and Amazon make because they don't want to pay Apple's fees for sales going through their marketplace? If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it. Same thing as the Kindle Store, you can't buy Kindle books through t…

> If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it.

Apple doesn't pay them. Anyone who wants to sell media on iOS has to compete with iTunes while subject to a 30% price handicap. If that's not anticompetitive I don't know what is.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#23

Post by bitmapbrother »

shubhamjain wrote: post #12

I wonder how worse it'll play out if Google pulled the plug and stopped paying these fees. These companies would be left with nothing but inferior alternatives (Bing, Yahoo, maybe DDG?). Mozilla tried this by cutting out Google for its default search engine and I don't think it made any meaningful difference. I think, in a certain sense, Google is a risk-averse company. It simply won't gamble with its user base, no m…

>Mozilla tried this by cutting out Google for its default search engine

Did Mozilla really cut out Google or did Google not want to renew the deal after it expired?

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#24

Post by notyourwork »

gareim wrote: post #6
mankash666 wrote: post #2

It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitr…

>app cut fairly high Same as Google's, so it seems standard. >non-negotiable at 30% Reduces for certain types of apps, given specific conditions, but yes for 99.99% it's non-negotiable. Still, it's their platform. >arbitrary at best I'd wager most rejections follow very clear rules. There are some head scratchers, but those aren't the norm, so "at best" is wrong. >Who'd you think the EU would investigate for monopoli…

> Gotta have a monopoly in order to be investigated for it.

That implies that anyone investigated for being a monopoly already is one so why investigate at all if you already know the outcome?

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#25

Post by psykotic »

mankash666 wrote: post #17
psykotic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. This is a very innocent view of Google's business practices in this area. Google has a tight hold over most device makers through anti-fragmentation agreements and other contracts if they want GMS and want early access to the non-public AOSP tre…

You're free to run your own app store, like Amazon fire devices, and not subscribe to GMS. Why shouldn't Google get something in return for enabling phone makers with an OS and app store? They're a for profit company after all

Sure, and the AFA has a pro-developer and pro-consumer side by reducing fragmentation. But I think it's important to understand that the open source aspect of Android is a small part of the story in practice for device makers. The narrative that Google is just "giving it away for free" is naive at best for the very reason you state: they're a profit-driven megacorp.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#26

Post by prklmn »

Veratyr wrote: post #22
freehunter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can't buy/rent movies on Google Play, Amazon, etc. apps on iOS Isn't that a choice Google and Amazon make because they don't want to pay Apple's fees for sales going through their marketplace? If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it. Same thing as the Kindle Store, you can't buy Kindle books through t…

> If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it. Apple doesn't pay them. Anyone who wants to sell media on iOS has to compete with iTunes while subject to a 30% price handicap. If that's not anticompetitive I don't know what is.

I look at in in the context of physical goods. Grocery stores processs their private label meats. The grocery store also sells name brand meats but those brands have to pay for shelf space. The meat is exactly the same, just processed by two different entities - one who owns the store and one that doesn’t.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#27

Post by gumby »

tyingq wrote: post #15
gumby wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's changes in search shifted much of the traffic that went to smaller sites to larger, more established sites. Ones where the cost per impression/click are higher for Google. Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? I'm happy to believe that Google did do evil, but I would like some evidence. This kind of change sounds short sighted.

>Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? That's not what I said at all...I was saying their costs were higher as a result. They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in Google search results. I am speculating on one particular side effect that had. I have no proof, because only Google would have the data needed to prove that.

> That's not what I said at all...I was saying their costs were higher as a result.

Ah, thanks. Sorry I misunderstood what you'd written.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#28

Post by AceJohnny2 »

neonhomer wrote: post #21
gumby wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed Their App Store is a monopoly, but I have friends who use iPhones and use Google's Inbox, Google's search app, Chrome browser, Google Maps and Waze etc and don't use the built-in defaults. I guess they like the hardware. So maybe I'm not interpreting "completely closed" correctly. > ... In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary restrictio…

I'm one of those people who gladly use an iPhone with mostly Google apps (namely Chrome, Gmail and Maps). My little experience with Android has always been negative. The only real annoyance with iOS is you can't set Chrome nor Maps as default applications.

I'm in the same boat. My dream device would be iPhone HW with Android software. I like Android's flexibility, the replaceable home screen instead of the list of apps, the Intents system that lets you replace an app handler with another (Chrome & Maps for example), the much better notification system...

I have an iPhone now (because work), and it took a few months to stop grumbling, but I definitely appreciated the overall better hardware compared to my friend's Android phones, most significantly the excellent (and immediately available!) camera.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#29

Post by mtgx »

gumby wrote: post #11
tyingq wrote: post #4

I can't help but have a bit of schadenfreude here. Part of what happened was that Google used to send a fair amount of organic traffic to smaller sites. And many of those smaller sites had Adsense ads. Google's changes in search shifted much of the traffic that went to smaller sites to larger, more established sites. Ones where the cost per impression/click are higher for Google. So, part of it is self inflicted. The…

> Google's changes in search shifted much of the traffic that went to smaller sites to larger, more established sites. Ones where the cost per impression/click are higher for Google. Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? I'm happy to believe that Google did do evil, but I would like some evidence. This kind of change sounds short sighted.

Google announced many years ago (might have been like 8 or something) that it will start to emphasize more on "brands" in the search engine. That focus on bigger sites has only steadily increased.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#30

Post by mrtksn »

mankash666 wrote: post #2

It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitr…

We all love Google's products but your comment is needlessly emotional.

Google is not charity, it's always good to remember that.

Google is not giving away the source code of Android for philanthropic reasons, it's just part of the business model, i.e. the process of money making to pay the employees and the shareholders.

Oh and Apple is definitely not putting arbitrary restrictions to anything, all the restrictions have a reason - that you might or might not agree to but definitely not random. In case you want to bypass Apple and run a code on your iPhone, you can do it by compiling it and installing it personally.

I think EU will investigate the companies that have large enough marketshare that they can abuse their position.

Post reply on HN