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

Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

googleplaydevelopersettlement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#91

Post by rendaw »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

That's because they might not be at fault. Companies settle when they did nothing wrong - they settle because the cost of going to court and paying those fees to prove they did nothing wrong is expected to be higher than settling.

This is like someone stole $100 from you, and you _think_ it's Henry, and Henry says "it wasn't me, but I'll give you $10 to stop bothering me." Maybe Henry did it, maybe he didn't.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#92

Post by izacus »

midoridensha wrote: post #4
capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. That said, how does Google monopolize Android app distribution? You're free to install APKs yourself. So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? There's no such ability on that platform. Why does it always feel like Google is constantly being hounded about stuff that Apple gets off sco…

Because Apple builds more expensive hardware which is tiny bit less popular than Google's opensource OS. And governments of 2020s hate, HATE solving these problems systematically and ensuring equal markets - the only approach right now is just to randomly slap the biggest company to get some money and let everyone else continue with problematic behaviours.

Also, richer people (which includes polititians) are using iPhones, why would they hurt the corporation they love?

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#93

Post by zinekeller »

aliqot wrote: post #87
ec109685 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildcard can avoid the dns polluting. The domain prefix stands out a bit more and let’s them have their own cookies.

I didn't consider the lets them have their own cookies part, but I kinda like it, however I don't really know why other than I like separations of concerns. Why do you prefer that, and what scenarios have necessitated that in the past if you don't mind me asking?

Actual reason: because there are different firms administering these settlements. You want to separate these by subdomain so that there isn't a chance that an administrator from one site hijacking into another. Unless you're proposing the government to directly call/mail affected persons (might be desirable in cases like the JnJ Talc powder case where it is clearly a retail case).

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#94

Post by bushbaba »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

> That last part has always irked me in settlements like this. Like how is it not an admission of wrongdoing if you finally say "Ok, I'll give you money for this problem to go away"

If it'll cost you Y to settle, and Y is substantially less than the cost across defending yourself, PR Hit, and time spent not on core business. You might want to settle.

Sure you could fight, win, sue for damages, etc. BUT that's really unlikely to win when the plaintiff isn't another multi-national court and the lawsuit wasn't totally frivolous.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#95

Post by Dracophoenix »

DannyBee wrote: post #37
capableweb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the judicial system is just another version of the financial system, another extension of capitalism rather than being about actual justice?

Civil litigation is just a dispute resolving mechanism, not a right/wrong decider.

IANAL. In this context, possibly not. However, in US courts, culpability is a major consideration in many types of civil litigation. Lawsuits concerning malpractice, contract violations, torturous interference, defamation, wrongful death, etc. go beyond merely mediating a dispute.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#96

Post by chrismcb »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

No. It not necessarily. Maybe it is cheaper for them to just pay up. Even if they aren't guilty, there might be a chance a court would find them guilty and the punishment would be far worse.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#97

Post by aliqot »

zinekeller wrote: post #93
aliqot wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't consider the lets them have their own cookies part, but I kinda like it, however I don't really know why other than I like separations of concerns. Why do you prefer that, and what scenarios have necessitated that in the past if you don't mind me asking?

Actual reason: because there are different firms administering these settlements. You want to separate these by subdomain so that there isn't a chance that an administrator from one site hijacking into another. Unless you're proposing the government to directly call/mail affected persons (might be desirable in cases like the JnJ Talc powder case where it is clearly a retail case).

Ah that's a great reason, thanks. It helps when you framed it up in current events, really made sense.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#98

Post by pjmlp »

sinoue wrote: post #40
cma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iOS dollar share of the app market is still higher I believe.

Funny that Apple may need to help Google and Samsung gain marketshare in order to keep the most profitable segment of the market while staying out of the monopoly category.

That is pretty much the main reason why Microsoft rescued Apple from insolvency.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#99

Post by onion2k »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

Imagine someone stole something from you, that you value at 100 USD. Then when you try to convince them to give it back because they took it from you, they say "Ok, I'll give you 100 USD but that doesn't mean I'm admitting I took it, I just don't want to deal with it", wouldn't you take it as that person actually admitting they took it, although they don't want to confess to it?

Imagine that defending yourself in court was going to cost you $250,000 regardless of whether you won or lost. Wouldn't you just give them $100 with the caveat that it's not an admission of guilt?

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#100

Post by JanSt »

cft wrote: post #59

We developed a free social media application back in 2016 that cost us about $500,000 to build. We provided multiple safety filters including world filters, neural net pornography detection for profile avatars, etc. The application had a user profile search function. We had about 100,000 downloads in less than a year. I'm sure that 99.9% of user profiles did not contain any sexual material. Certainly less than Twitte…

Did you get that case to a lawyer?
Post reply on HN