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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#951

Post by jldugger »

fidotron wrote: post #617

The impact of the OEM deals can not be understated, and actually account for Android not being dominant in TV or IoT because Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation. For instance, for a long time if you wanted to make a device with the Play Store on you could not make any Android device which did not have the Play Store, even as a third par…

> Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation.

And yet the LG app store is terribad, and constantly pushing garbage the CEOs son in law wrote or something.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#952

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

codethief wrote: post #716
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Play is not just app store, but also the only way to efficiently deliver push notifications on Android devices. And latest modifications to Android OS make it very rippled without push notifications, all background apps unload from memory very fast. The result is that it makes many types of apps impossible to implement without relying on push notifications - and lock in to Google Play services. Same is true fo…

While they carry almost the same name, Google Play Services are not the same as the Play Store, though. You can use the former without using the latter.

I highly doubt that a manufacturer can release an Android phone that does not have Google Play Store app but does use Google Play Services. We have evidence that Google prohibits even releasing other models w/out Google Play store if it wants to make Androids with Google Play.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#953

Post by stale2002 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #918
kibwen wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a gotcha; consoles should be required to support homebrew games as well.

You could say that the three major console manufacturers have even stricter requirements for applications than Apple has. And still Apple is the one being sued.

Seeing as Apple is the largest market, yes it makes sense why the larger monopoly would be breaking the law more.

The way that anti-trust law works is that if you have more market power, like Apple clearly does, then you are even more subject to the law and required to do certain things.

But also, if you disagree, then feel free to sue those other groups.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#954

Post by stale2002 »

batty_alex wrote: post #717
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers…

> What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem

> Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign

Really?

When you buy food from the grocery store, the grocery store goes to your home and physically prevents you from also eating food from a different store at the same time, in your own home?

When people buy a phone, they own it. They are using it in their own home.

No, a grocery store does not force you to only eat food from them, in your own home.

They do not prevent you from mixing milk from their store with cookies from a different store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#955

Post by pentae »

ralfd wrote: post #738
pentae wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated

Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.

Average subscription length for most apps varies but the average is 3 months. Most people cancel within the first month no matter what the product is

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#956

Post by martimarkov »

bhelkey wrote: post #367
martimarkov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I ce…

> guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers Some five billion people have a smart phone [1]. For many it's the primary way they access the Internet. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/203734/global-smartphone... .

A lot of ppl have ovens or calculators or cheap smart tvs doesn’t make them general computing devices.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#957

Post by martimarkov »

lannisterstark wrote: post #343
martimarkov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I ce…

>I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. You could STILL do that if that does happen on Apple. No one forces you. It just gives people more choices. Choices are good.

Not if every app decides to implement their own in app subscription in order to make it harder for me to cancel or dispute. And then move their app to not the App Store. Apple provides a common playground for every app. You need to provide these things to your customers or you can play with them. I like it because it forces developers to adhere to some standards. Like for example not tracking me and not building only the subscription start part but have the cancellation behind an email I need to send.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#958

Post by martimarkov »

scq wrote: post #424
martimarkov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I ce…

Is it worth it to pay 30% more for everything in order to have that convenience? Even if you think it is, other people might disagree. Apple prevents app creators from even mentioning that you can purchase content or subscriptions in a web browser instead. I just want to be able to use the hardware I already paid for without Apple taking a cut of everything I do on it.

But you knew exactly the contract you are getting into and still went ahead with it.

Also Apple take around 15% from most developers.

Also it’s not really about providing choice given that developers will flock to the lowest % store and it doesn’t matter if that store siphons personal data. My main problem with this is that the push comes from profit margins and not care about the users and that is pretty obvious if you ask the why question a few times

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#959

Post by amadeuspagel »

jncfhnb wrote: post #928
amadeuspagel wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we will see is that you will need a different app store for every game on android, while on iOS you can get them all from the App Store. The only thing that will be clear is that Apple got it right the first time by not allowing other app stores.

This isn’t what happens on PC And there’s no reason to think it will happen here. You might have a few stores but they will largely compete with each other, reduce prices, and offer freebies. Fuck the App Store. I want to use steam.

It's exactly what happened on PC. Want to install Starcraft? Have to use Battle.net. Want to install Fortnite? Have to use the Epic Store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#960

Post by martimarkov »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #602
martimarkov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I ce…

> guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers and we are not really touching those I mean, I'm on board with using video game consoles as proper computers as well, but my phone literally has gcc installed so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It’s not a general purpose device, it’s a phone. The only reason why anyone is pushing for this is because their profits are affected and they do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to justify it. If Apple tomorrow says 0% fees - 90% of the developers are going to say YES we did it. But in reality no new user freedoms were gained or choice to the user was provided. It’s an assumption but everyone always talks about the % being high and given that there are more app developers than console developers it seems like it’s not a mindset but just a “it hurts my profit margins” which has 0 benefit for the user.
Post reply on HN