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

Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#841

Post by riversflow »

dcow wrote: post #833
michaelt wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)

Meal kit companies don’t pay the 30% because the payment is for a service that is delivered outside the app. Uber doesn't pay it either. It’s a stupid loophole apple built in that all but proves the 30% cut is ridiculous and would never work in the real world.

Curious what B2C business sectors take less than a 30% cut?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#842

Post by jojobas »

guru4consulting wrote: post #837

I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…

FWIW you don't really need an app store, you could download APKs off vendors/publishers, verify signatures and mind updates (except Apple won't let you, but that's a different story).

You want to use an app store, fine, use an app store and pay some commission on what you buy there, it's not a problem, reaching into any purchase done after the initial download is.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#843

Post by vineyardmike »

oarsinsync wrote: post #606
vineyardmike wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already. Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree…

> I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. And yet you can literally pick up a phone, dial some numbers, and reach everyone else who has a phone number.

> And yet you can literally pick up a phone, dial some numbers, and reach everyone else who has a phone number.

And yet you can literally pick up a [product engineered to a phone company’s specifications], dial some numbers [assigned by a phone company] and reach everyone else who [also agreed to the phone company’s TOS] [as long as you and them have paid a large monthly fee].

This isn’t freedom. Companies still decide how you can use their services.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#844

Post by jojobas »

pipes wrote: post #805
andy_ppp wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

They aren't "taking revenue" they are providing a service. If audible don't want to use that service they don't have to.

Except they want their cut whether or not you use their service.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#845

Post by mschuster91 »

naasking wrote: post #794
mschuster91 wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well: - for employees, they're bad because monopolies (or cartels) suppress their freedom to go to a better employer. The best case…

> It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well Some markets only support a natural monopoly though. If you forcefully break up every monopoly you'll always be in court, because after winning the case and breaking up a company, the next natural monopoly will form within a few years. The best…

Agreed, particularly in agriculture and other rural scenarios it's very common that there is effectively one seller/purchaser for entire classes of goods. But there is barely any government oversight authority to watch over these or where any affected party can raise grievances.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#846

Post by darklycan51 »

Phones are a literal hellhole to utilize compared to desktop, which is why I very literally do not buy any smartphone other than the low end 2017 one I still own. Even "sideloading" is fairly trash on itself, just let me pick any appstore whatsoever and install out of the box, no need to "sideload".

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#847

Post by jojobas »

gleenn wrote: post #655
inlined wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since Google had always had the AOSP as a reasonable way of demonstrating their commitment to the industry as a whole disjoint from the places where they thought the Google ecosystem provided extra value (which they admittedly require you to take wholesale)

AOSP has effectively been dead for a long time. You need Google Play services for almost everything now and more and more creeps into the proprietary portion.

No you don't. Writing an app to use google services is a choice. There's MicroG for silly apps that require google services, and there's also life without using silly apps that require google services.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#848

Post by willseth »

gardenhedge wrote: post #828
willseth wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buying any device with services attached to sit in a little room and interrogate them until you're sure they understand every detail?

In my country chemists are required to give you some information before selling you certain drugs. Something similar could be done.

Do you have Apple Stores in your country? They're almost always packed. Could you imagine how insane it would be to do that? Would you no longer be able buy iPhones online? What you suggest is completely infeasible.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#849

Post by Oras »

jojobas wrote: post #842
guru4consulting wrote: post #837

I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…

FWIW you don't really need an app store, you could download APKs off vendors/publishers, verify signatures and mind updates (except Apple won't let you, but that's a different story). You want to use an app store, fine, use an app store and pay some commission on what you buy there, it's not a problem, reaching into any purchase done after the initial download is.

> you don't really need an app store

> except Apple won't let you, but that's a different story

You're saying you can comment, but no one will give you access to the keyboard?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#850

Post by EA-3167 »

wvenable wrote: post #601
vineyardmike wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already. Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree…

> Even if you make a phone that only works on the AT&T network, you still need to agree to their terms. Prior to the 1980s, AT&T, as the dominant telephone service provider in the United States, had a policy that only allowed customers to use telephones that were leased from them. This policy was rooted in the belief that non-AT&T equipment could harm the telephone network. Does that sounds familiar? Several legal ca…

Phones aren't infrastructure, the telecom network is.
Post reply on HN