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

Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 219 posts

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#171

Post by scarface74 »

solarkraft wrote: post #152
scarface74 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that makes Android, Android to most Western consumers is closed source - the play store, Google Maps, Youtube, the dialer, Chrome, etc. Google has abandoned more and more of the open source parts of AOSP with closed source alternatives over the years. That’s not to mention all of the drivers that are proprietary....

But it is pretty interesting how easy it has always been to bypass the Play Store. It's user friendly, yes, and I like it, but it essentially enables Epic Games' workaround. Google could have easily added way more (still acceptable for most users) friction into the process in the first place. Maybe having the switch in the developer settings, maybe having to enable it over ADB. That'd surely have made Epic Games thin…

The original statement was....

Because consoles are proprietary closed source boxen and android isn't

The fact that you can install software outside of the app store no more makes the version of Android that most people run "open source" than it does Windows or MacOS.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#172

Post by rhacker »

izacus wrote: post #136
gkoberger wrote: post #11

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…

In a few years the media (which has always been very pro-Apple) has internalized the idea, that all your software MUST come from a single corporation controlled walled garden and pay tax to them. The whole concept of being able to install software from a source you choose is now so foreign that they'll speak against it when possible. And unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a lot of HN commenters as well.

here here. Can you imagine that if, back in the early 80s, when PCs and Apple computers were just starting out if companies like Software Etc., Egghead or RadioShack or Fry's or other venues had to get ALL their software (boxed packages) from Apple or IBM (or possibly MS) before they were allowed to sell it? I'm sure IBM and Apple would have benefitted a ton, but companies like Adobe, Id, Epic, Norton, and a slew of others... would have suffered and probably never made it as far as they have. The kind of anti-competition models these companies have over the market is a massive stranglehold.

Now the crux is this. In the 80s, 90s and arguably most of the 00's the average Joe and average Katey didn't store 90% of their personal secrets, nude photos, diaries, drug deal receipts, etc... on their desktops and later laptop computers. It wasn't until this decade that such massive amounts of personal information started to become digital. Yes very likely I among thousands of HNs had already crazy personal lives going back to the mid-80s on a desktop hard drive sitting in some dump right now. But hey, at least they barely work and CC info is probably stale.

But today, the environment is much different. I'm not arguing that what Apple and Google is OK, but at least they got some kind of notion that free-for-all might not be appropriate right now.

It might take some time but I definitely welcome new models. For example: * Certified third party app stores * Independent Software Certifiers

It can be up to the user to decide if they want to either use a specific store or decide to specifically trust the certificate of an independent software certifier. And at that point Google could, for example, treat the app as a pass through on their own store. The software certifiers will need to keep a reputation up, for example.

I know I'm providing simple examples here - not that I want to discuss in detail on HN the finer points of these ideas - but that I want there to BE another way that can allow software to be sold online, without the 30% Apple markup that chokes the independent software vendors out there.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#173

Post by draw_down »

jpdus wrote: post #130

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am still a big fan of Android´s openess (at least compared to the walled garden that is iOS) and I think it should the right of every company or developer to NOT use a closed platform to distribute its app. However on the other hand, this move by Epic sets a dangerous precedent: Factually, Google get´s economically punished for being more open than Apple. This does…

As Socrates once said, "deserve got nuthin' to do with it."

Your comment really boils down to the notion that the more "open" platform "should" get more money. Both scare-quoted words are thinking about- Google plays up the open idea only when it suits them rather than as a matter of principle. And as far as "should", I'm not sure what is to be done there- teachers should make more money, politicians shouldn't lie, and so on. But, the world does work in those ways, sadly, and "should" isn't helping.

At any rate, isn't the point of open things supposed to be that they are better, not that they make more money? The better-ness should be the end in itself, no? And isn't it supposed to have virtuous effects because more people buy the open thing because the open thing is better? Well, if anyone in the Android camp is interested in re-examining those assumptions I would be all ears. But, somehow I suspect that won't be happening too soon

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#174

Post by kodablah »

scarface74 wrote: post #154
kodablah wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. My comment has nothing to do with what you can do elsewhere. I was responding specifically to the false claim "aren't doing anything to prevent competition" which is untrue, they are doing things.

Your claim was that you couldn’t have third party keyboards on iOS (untrue), you couldn’t have third party dialer (untrue), you couldn’t use third party development environments (untrue), you had to develop on the Mac (untrue). You couldn’t use a third party SMS client- Google Voice let’s you do that.

Unfortunately, whether we agree or not, automatic defaults, prominence of placement, ease of change, and several other factors all contribute to rulings of active competition prevention. That you can change (with or without caveats) is often not enough. None of it relates to the original false statement that Apple does nothing to prevent competition with their platform which it does for many values of platform.

I was incorrect on the keyboard choice, but caveats about what the dialer can be used for or what system that you have to compile on remain. Again though, that's nitpicking here, they have restrictions on all sorts of places that will conveniently be ignored in responses (e.g. alternative installation methods) to make specific points. The general point stands, they actively stifle. To say they don't or that it's only 1 comes off as bias. To ask someone to list some examples to make the general, obvious point is a bit derailing.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#175

Post by philipov »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #153
philipov wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of a platform business is an insane racket.

Google spends absurd amounts of money developing and supporting Android, providing security updates, providing feature updates, and even goes so far as to spend money marketing Android. They then give Android, for free, to manufacturers to use on their phones. They also create, support, and give, for free , many of the development tools which developers like Epic Games then use to create Android applications and game…

The fact that it is hard and provides value does not stop it from also being unethical. The conversation about antitrust needs to move beyond just monopolies and recognize that an oligopoly of mega-corporations staking out their own kingdoms is still massively anti-competitive. Corporate feudalism isn't my idea of free-market capitalism.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#176

Post by dragonwriter »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #102
thfuran wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, what solution would there be? Solution to what?

Hypothetically, to Google getting Epic's business. Is lost customers not a problem in your eyes? People are sitting here being pedantic about "lost" revenue, even though I said nothing about that. My point however, is that assuming Google would want Epic's business (which seems reasonable) , would they gain or lose money by changing their pricing structure to fit something Epic would put up with. Ie, if they reduced…

> would they gain or lose money by changing their pricing structure to fit something Epic would put up with.

I can't see any reason a company with an existing property with Fortnite's visibility would be willing to pay much of anything for App Store placement other than access to a pure walled garden like iOS.

Not sure you can write a policy that fits that kind of product and most of what actually gets delivered vis the Appstore, and which doesn't have the overhead of a human-in-the-loop on pricing decisions.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#177

Post by noelsusman »

bdz wrote: post #138

CEO of Epic >The 30% store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70% must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games. There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30% is disproportionate to the cost of the services these store…

The CEO of Epic knows full well that the primary service the Play Store provides is access to the users who have the Play Store installed and use it as their primary means of obtaining apps.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#178

Post by xg15 »

gkoberger wrote: post #11

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…

I'd say the framing is right, because it highlights why this is news: The Play Store is way more than a service for Google - it's one of the primary ways they keep control over the Android ecosystem.

To my knowledge, this is the first time, someone uses the side-loading loophole on a commercial scale. It should be interesting to observe Google's reaction to that.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#179

Post by Pissompons »

jpdus wrote: post #130

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am still a big fan of Android´s openess (at least compared to the walled garden that is iOS) and I think it should the right of every company or developer to NOT use a closed platform to distribute its app. However on the other hand, this move by Epic sets a dangerous precedent: Factually, Google get´s economically punished for being more open than Apple. This does…

> From a business point-of-view (when sideloading becomes more common) the "right" move for Google would be to fork AOSP, make new Android versions as closed as iOS (while still distributed for free) and prevent any sideloading. No sane CEO who is measured by increasing shareholder value could justify stayig open if this jeopardizes the revenues without providing major benefits.

The problem here is that while Google controls the software, it doesn't control the hardware. All the real power is in the hands of the OEMs.

If Google wanted to close Android, they'd need to either:

- Leverage/convince all the OEMs into adopting the closed fork

- Watch as they lose control completely when someone else makes a dominant fork

- Watch the Android ecosystem crumble as everyone throws out their own fork

I don't think this would work because the OEMs have no incentive to do it. They don't get any cut of the Play Store profits so they have no interest in its success. To the contrary, Samsung at least has its own store. Plus, Android's openness is one of the things differentiating it from Apple. If they closed it down, they have the compromised privacy of a Google device with the closed platform of an Apple device. Apple's closedness then ceases to be a problem and they can differentiate with their privacy-friendliness.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#180

Post by Pissompons »

ksec wrote: post #159
bdz wrote: post #138

CEO of Epic >The 30% store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70% must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games. There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30% is disproportionate to the cost of the services these store…

How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System? Along with payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service? Google doesn't charge them a cent for using Android. As a matter of fact if you don't like the Google Store, Maps, and Search it has to offer for free, you could have forked the whole thing and tidy up all the loose e…

> How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System?

> Google doesn't charge them a cent for using Android.

Why should Epic care about Android's development costs? They don't pay Microsoft a cent for Windows, why should they pay Google for Android?

Google chose this business model, software developers certainly have no obligation to support it.

> Along with payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service?

Epic has all this infrastructure already, they need it for their PC customers. Why overpay for Google's?

Post reply on HN