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

121–130 of 495 posts

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

#121

Post by galleywest »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #37
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.

Does it make a difference that Apple is the hardware manufacturer, whereas Microsoft just provides the OS for PCs in general?

Microsoft DOES sell hardware. The Surface series anybody?

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

#123

Post by erhk »

sandworm101 wrote: post #64
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.

Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.

We should still call for breaking up bad busoness practices regardles of whether something is a monopoly or not. We forget that even considering a monopoly to require gov intervention is a somewhat novel concept. Right to repair comes to mind, especially for things like tractors. Im tired of paying for products and not truly owning them in the way I want to. Be it in the literal sense or being locked into iOS' walled garden or otherwise.

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

#125

Post by encryptluks2 »

sulam wrote: post #19
samhw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't think that's going far enough. That "our vision is that we work as if we are one company" line couldn't be a better basis for an antitrust case if they were literally trying to incriminate themselves.

That line, bereft of context, is being used as if the two companies don’t compete in many many markets. Do you really think that the original context was as broad as the entire company’s operations? Or even the respective phone ecosystems? They clearly compete with each other heavily.

Also, that line may be the only evidence... depending on who said it and in what context, it is very unlikely that a plaintiff would use a single instance like this as the basis for their entire case.

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

#126

Post by encryptluks2 »

grishka wrote: post #79
lucasverra wrote: post #63

That is why we need trustless / censorship resistant platforms like “regular” web or the yet to be proven web 3 (led by ethereum)

No. We just need two things: - it should be illegal to lock down a device against its end user - governments should stop protecting companies and helping prevent adversarial interoperability

> governments should stop protecting companies and helping prevent adversarial interoperability

Do you realize that given our current laws in the US, that this is pretty much impossible?

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

#127

Post by realusername »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #53
realusername wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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.

In theory I do agree, competition between both could exist. In practice though it does not happen. There's some pretty clear market collusion.

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

#128

Post by the-dude »

ant6n wrote: post #95
zpeti wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is just the natural evolution of any market. Unfortunately it leads to this. There's not much competition in the railroad market, or the telco market anymore, which used to be massive spaces for innovation. There are two options: - We have to wait for the next technological revolution. - It is simply just more costly to be an entrepreneur. It's not about throwing together a website or app, it's much more…

There's competition in the railroad market in the EU,because they want there to be a market. In particular they mandate separation of infrastructure and operation, and force rail infrastructure owners to give open access to all (for a toll, which has to be the same for all operators). Once you can't use infrastructure as a moat, competition is much more possible. The US which only regulates rail safety but not the ma…

Are there any indications that a market for rail is actually more efficient?

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

#129

Post by sciprojguy »

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…

"Samsung Branded iPhones"? This can't possibly be a thing.

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

#130

Post by TeeMassive »

woofie11 wrote: post #25
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.

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.

I've once worked for a large corporation that got hit hard by antitrust. Think a few tens of billions of dollars. Why? A seller was caught giving freebies if they bought their products. That's it. That's all it took.

I know because due to that incident we had to follow online formation every god damn month about antitrust. You don't have to have a "monopoly" to trigger antitrust legislation. The mere mention of "deals" or "cooperation" or "understanding" in the same conversation that involves competitor can be enough evidence to cause huge trouble.

Post reply on HN