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

Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 495 posts

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#51

Post by Y_Y »

darkwater wrote: post #29
tpush wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tying claim eventually got dropped from the case, though, since the govt couldn't prove that the harm to competition outweighed the benefits of having a browser built in to the OS.

Not in Europe though. We had a WinXP version without IE and a prompt at first install to choose the desired browser

I was really excited about the "browser ballot" when that judgement came through. In the end though it appeared on tragically few installs. I never even saw it in the wild.

It was a mess for other reasons too, but it felt at the time like it represented a turning tide against anti-competitive behaviour in software.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#52

Post by Dracophoenix »

agloeregrets wrote: post #20
mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

The law sees it as they have been paid and blackmailed to see it. There was a report yesterday that showed Apple's lawyers threatening to pull out funding of a minority education school if the state considered any sort of App store laws.

Wouldn't that be Apple's prerogative? There's no reason to do business in a state that's hostile to your interests or pursuits. That's not blackmail anymore than the attempted Hollywood boycott over Georgia's abortion laws a few years ago. There are plenty of well-documented violations of integrity to accuse Apple of, but using its philanthropic investments as a leverage isn't one of them.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#53

Post by dividedbyzero »

realusername wrote: post #34
woofie11 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.

> * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. [source needed]. The only tariff change Apple ever made was ... due to a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. And Google followed straight away. I can't recall any competition between both companies, they just have their own distinct market.

They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#54

Post by dividedbyzero »

Xelbair wrote: post #44
JCWasmx86 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically this is the only thing preventing a chromium monopoly with probably >90% of marketshare (Although this restriction is still not that great for the user)

so if this restriction was gone, it would make everything more sane for customer, while finally dealing with chromium monopoly. sounds like a win-win to me.

How would a chromium monopoly be a win (for anyone but Google)?

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#55

Post by wayneftw »

mercora wrote: post #39
agloeregrets wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law sees it as they have been paid and blackmailed to see it. There was a report yesterday that showed Apple's lawyers threatening to pull out funding of a minority education school if the state considered any sort of App store laws.

do you have a source available?

https://www.imore.com/apple-used-intimidation-and-lot-money-...

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#56

Post by wslh »

mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

In these cases, generally, the law acts when other parties push it. Mainly big actors. The app stores are generally build by those major actors. May be regulations will happen in several years.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#57

Post by shagie »

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35
jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

If apple prevented its licensees for the iPhone to bundle Safari rather than another browser... then this would be more applicable.

However, Apple isn't extending its dominance in the smart phone area (Apple has 53% market share of mobile devices, Microsoft had above 90% market share for intel compatible PCs https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... ) to its licensees for iOS.

Apple not forcing Samsung to bundle Safari on the Samsung branded iPhones to the exclusion of Chrome.

Yes, Apple isn't licensing iOS to others and that's a key difference. Furthermore, Apple has half of the market dominance that Microsoft had in its day.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#58

Post by gentleman11 »

jasode wrote: post #30
mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

What about alerting users that Firefox is potentially malware and that edge is safer? That seems extremely anti competitive to me

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#59

Post by eptcyka »

shagie wrote: post #57
NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

If apple prevented its licensees for the iPhone to bundle Safari rather than another browser... then this would be more applicable. However, Apple isn't extending its dominance in the smart phone area (Apple has 53% market share of mobile devices, Microsoft had above 90% market share for intel compatible PCs https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... ) to its licensees for iOS. Apple not forcing…

Just because they make both iOS and the iPhone doesn't mean they get a pass to be anticompetitive on their platform.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#60

Post by tomComb »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #27

I've grown pretty pessimistic about the prospects of the Internet as a motor for entrepreneurship. Today it is theoretically still "free" but wherever you go you'll find gatekeepers like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft that keep a tight grip on who is visible on the net and who can offer a service or software product on a given platform. In my view, the market dominance of the big players has led to a…

That's why the web is so important. When the proprietary platforms get the upper hand you get eg. Apple taking a 50% cut off revenue in their news app.
Post reply on HN