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

171–180 of 495 posts

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

#171

Post by fingerlocks »

fooey wrote: post #161
cartoonworld wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox works fine on iOS

As the parent post says, Firefox on iOS isn't really Firefox. It doesn't run Gecko, it's barely more than a skin on top of Safari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5... > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.

How much does this really matter to the typical user? I’m not using Firefox because it’s JS and rendering engine are significantly better than webkit. Can’t really tell the difference honestly. I’m still getting all the other features of Firefox that actually distinguish it from it’s competitors. The so-called skin is more like the guts from a user value perspective.

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

#172

Post by fingerlocks »

cartoonworld wrote: post #169
cartoonworld wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox works fine on iOS

Question to downvotes: I’ve seen people saying in these comments often that you have to use safari. I am using ff on my iOS device right now, what am I missing?

The technical reason is that a very powerful system call is blocked on iOS that’s required to build a custom language runtime needed for a browser. This is done to increase security of the device. The trade-off is that the JavaScript engine and renderer must be shared by all browsers on iOS.

But if you can’t tell the difference, does it really matter?

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

#173

Post by dalbasal »

edouard-harris wrote: post #164
dalbasal wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 25% of Google's app sales to keep them from developing rival app stores Google also pays Apple 7 billion annually^ to be its default SE. Despite Adwords' incredible profitability, Yahoo & MSFT's experience as 2nd place in that market was working very hard and earning $0 profits... Their Revenues @ were far lower than proportional to their market share, and costs are the opposite. Better to just take your share of…

> Google also pays Apple 7 billion annually^ to be its default SE. It's actually between $8-12 billion now. [1] > Yahoo & MSFT's experience as 2nd place in that market was working very hard and earning $0 profits. This is an exaggeration though. MSFT made nearly $8 billion in revenue last year from search (mostly Bing), and the business has naturally high margins so it would be extremely surprising if it was unprofit…

>>business' has naturally high margins

$8bn in revenue might not mean profitable. Google certainly spend a lot more than this on search and advertising, and well... software scales.

In any case, whether they make $1bn in profit, losses or something in between... This is profits. Apple is making $8bn-$12bn, all profit, just on defaults.

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

#174

Post by cartoonworld »

fingerlocks wrote: post #172
cartoonworld wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question to downvotes: I’ve seen people saying in these comments often that you have to use safari. I am using ff on my iOS device right now, what am I missing?

The technical reason is that a very powerful system call is blocked on iOS that’s required to build a custom language runtime needed for a browser. This is done to increase security of the device. The trade-off is that the JavaScript engine and renderer must be shared by all browsers on iOS. But if you can’t tell the difference, does it really matter?

Thanks, appreciated greatly

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

#175

Post by danShumway »

roenxi wrote: post #78
H8crilA wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Apple's monopoly position is even stronger because they can put roadblocks at the hardware level? :)

The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat. In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.

Keep in mind that the words "reasonable market" and "alternatives" are doing a lot of work here.

From the linked documents:

> If Android competed with iOS on app transactions, the market competition would make Android apps cheaper for users and attract developers to launch their apps first (or even only) on Android. [...] After a meeting involving senior executives of Google and Apple, notes of the meeting were exchanged between the two companies. The notes reflect: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."

Epic's lawsuits are alleging that both Apple and Google have engaged in anti-competitive behavior here, albeit sometimes in different ways. Even bolder, they're claiming that Google and Apple engaged cooperative anti-competitive behavior that benefited both companies. What consumer-ready alternatives exist for users outside of Apple and Android? If a developer announces that they're building a smartphone game, and that it won't work on Android or iOS, do you think it's reasonably possible for that developer to make money with that game?

Apple has massive amounts of competitive leverage over the smartphone ecosystem; they control the most profitable app store. And the vast majority of non-iOS phones are running the Google Play Store. In that context, locking down the hardware has much bigger implications than it would in a truly competitive market. I think the question is, do we actually have a competitive smartphone market when it comes to smartphone app stores and OSes?

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

#178

Post by noptd »

jimbob45 wrote: post #156
jakecopp wrote: post #9

> After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company." ... > This unredacted graf shows that telcos get up to 25% of Google's app sales to keep them from developing rival app stores on the smartphones they sell and service. Insane reading.

That’s it, right? That’s the game? There’s no way the DoJ doesn’t have a slam-dunk case with that one quote.

With additional details and evidence, I'd hope so. I'm not sure how this could be seen as anything other than collusion and anti-competitive behavior.

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

#179

Post by 0x0nyandesu »

roenxi wrote: post #78
H8crilA wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Apple's monopoly position is even stronger because they can put roadblocks at the hardware level? :)

The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat. In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.

In the entertainment industry not having an iPhone literally hurts your career. If you can't use iMessage people look at you weird and you are literally excluded from social circles. I know someone that was in tech and went into music and even though she prefers Android she ended up caving and getting an iPhone.

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

#180

Post by defaulty »

beckman466 wrote: post #3

> Larry Page told Steve Jobs in 2010 that "There will always be places we compete, and places where we cooperate." > After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company." > That is a damning little piece of evidence. Looks like it’s exactly the meritocracies Google and Apple claim to be, nothing monopoly-like to be…

In business school lingo, this is called 'coopetition' which is just a portmanteau of the two positions: cooperation & competition.
Post reply on HN