141–150 of 1001 posts
This is huge! I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. Might be time to revisit them...
And since plenty of companies do have viable businesses on the App Store, doesn’t that say more about your business idea than anything else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!
I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people ? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
The HN audience in particular is not just tinker-friendly, but the vast majority surely lived through the era of Apple where Jobs pitched the iPhone as more of a gateway to the internet in your pocket, web apps were even mentioned as being a major feature/philosophy.
Not to mention the "old world" of premobile OSes which still have the basic understanding that I can install programs programmed for this platform, without "protection" and the "protection fees" associated with a centralized monopoly, an old world of which macOS could never shed in the name of profits, but iOS and beyond has become the battleground for redefining the computing experience to the mainstream: is it supposed to be a bladerunner 2049 esque experience of hitting the predetermined icons on my pocket vending machine, infantilizing and commodifying people's lifestyle for wealth concentration of a company that uses it's wealth to...hmm.
It is, at the very least though, a bit of a betrayal to those used to the old ways.
At the worst, it's part of a larger regression against individualism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more nuanced than that. Apple successfully argued that the combination hardware+software experience of iOS and its app store is "the product", since people don't buy iOS for e.g. what bootloader it uses, but rather the wide ranging ecosystem experience and the apps that Apple certifies and verifies through a "feature" of "the product". Without such tight integration of the hardware and software, the product lose…
So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?
It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. Th…
And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.
It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. Th…
And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.
Google, as evidenced by their own internal documents put into record in this trial, was not interested in creating a platform where they had any real completion with the Google play store
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good thing it's 15% for both of them then.
A teaser rate? Good luck getting publisher or VC funding for something that is a bet on you going big. They will discount projections by the full 30.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is?
> Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's calle…
And they get away with it because Apple isn't competing with anyone within their own ecosystem; it's not a market.
Really is a neat little bit of lawyering, iOS and all apps within aren't competing with each other hence the rule about too many apps with similar features, they're competing as a unit with other computing platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic already lost the trial in the Apple case. Courts in the US and other countries have treated Google differently as an OS provider to OEMs than Apple as a single vendor. Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?
So Google is punished because they made their platform more open. Well, that certainly will bode well for the future.