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

321–330 of 495 posts

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

#321

Post by woofie11 »

solarkraft wrote: post #223
bushbaba wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s likely the payoff is also to prevent apple from building its own search engine to compete. As googles payoff is so lucrative

There have been reports and speculation that they’re doing just that. Of course it’s worth it for the negotiation threat alone, but Apple also really doesn’t seem to like depending on Google. I personally can’t see them switching any time soon, as DuckDuckGo’s search results are something between worse to terrible and I’m not sure they can do much better without collecting more data.

I found it varies. When I don't find something with DDG, I use !g to switch to Google. Google often finds it.

But the reverse is true too. DDG is now my default, but before, when Google didn't find something, I'd switch to DDG.

There is an implicit learning curve switching search engines. The way one crafts searches differs in subtle ways I don't understand on a conscious level.

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

#322

Post by bostik »

oblio wrote: post #315
heavyset_go wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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." They're literally a cartel.

Do you remember the no poaching agreement started personally by Steve Jobs? They have been a cartel for decades. They share board members, they compete only as much as not to threaten the status quo.

Nitpick: more than a decade. Google as a company has existed for less than 25 years.

Doesn't absolve them of terrible business practices, just shows that they caught up with them pretty fast.

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

#324

Post by heavyset_go »

oblio wrote: post #315
heavyset_go wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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." They're literally a cartel.

Do you remember the no poaching agreement started personally by Steve Jobs? They have been a cartel for decades. They share board members, they compete only as much as not to threaten the status quo.

I've been saying it for years, but I never thought I'd see either company say anything like that as boldly as they did. It's like something out of a cartoon.

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

#325

Post by cywick »

woofie11 wrote: post #321
solarkraft wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been reports and speculation that they’re doing just that. Of course it’s worth it for the negotiation threat alone, but Apple also really doesn’t seem to like depending on Google. I personally can’t see them switching any time soon, as DuckDuckGo’s search results are something between worse to terrible and I’m not sure they can do much better without collecting more data.

I found it varies. When I don't find something with DDG, I use !g to switch to Google. Google often finds it. But the reverse is true too. DDG is now my default, but before, when Google didn't find something, I'd switch to DDG. There is an implicit learning curve switching search engines. The way one crafts searches differs in subtle ways I don't understand on a conscious level.

Instead of using !g as fallback, I prefer to use !sp. You still get the Google results but they are proxied via startpage.com for better privacy.

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

#326

Post by eitland »

the-dude wrote: post #128
ant6n wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe not yet, but as someone who lived through the annoying breakup of the telecom monopoly in Norway I'd never ever go back.

I guess this will be the same.

In 1998 I remember having to dial 1521 or something before the number I was planning to dial to use the cheaper minutes with the competitor. I also remember having to learn to use 8 digit numbers for everyone instead of using 5 digit numbers locally.

Annoying, but forgotten 4 years later when you didn't have to prefix numbers anymore and we got cell phones with contact lists.

Same will happen with rail I guess. Annoying today, but I guess 4 years from now no one on their right mind will ever want to go back.

Oh, BTW, the same with the mail monopoly. A lot of complaints, but the result is I can now get my packages shipped overnight. I literally contacted my broadband provider on chat a Sunday afternoon during the last 30 days and had a new modem in my mail as I woke up the next morning.

No way that could have happened with the old telecom and mail monopolies in place.

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

#327

Post by passivate »

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…

I don't know every detail of the case, but I used Netscape in the 90's, it worked just fine. I don't think it was crippled by any means.

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

#328

Post by jollybean »

heavyset_go wrote: post #225
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.

>> 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." They're literally a cartel.

So if they actually said this, it's definitely anti-competitive collusion.

If someone can trace that directly to pricing ... well price collusion is definitely illegal.

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

#329

Post by sidcool »

I don't blame Google for doing it, but I do blame anti-trust agencies for turning a blind eye on this. Google is a business and by the very rules of capitalism, it does as much as possible to maintain their lead, sometimes skirting with the law. It's the onus of the FTC to ensure they are monitored and penalized in case of transgression.

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

#330

Post by frabcus »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #297
makeitdouble wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think parent’s point is that a one time slap (as big as it might be) as we do with other crimes wouldn’t solve the issue. The punishment has to be more structural, legislating for instance as you suggest, or dramatically changing the entity’s structure as we did with past monopolies.

I disagree: Shatter monopoly platforms with extreme prejudice, jail the CEOs of Google and Apple, and the market with self-correct. Investors will be wary of harmful business models and CEOs will hesitate to make monopolizing decisions. Right now, tech companies are massively overvalued because the risk of government regulation is viewed to be nonexistent. A market correction is overdue.

For Standard Oil, splitting it up actually increased shareholder value massively.

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/break-ups-and-stock-price...

The same could happen with big tech. The market correction could be upwards, just spread across lots of new stocks.

Post reply on HN