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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#991

Post by johnnyanmac »

jojobas wrote: post #852
Oras wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The whole discussion is about Google, they do let you use whatever store, and also let you compile and deploy your own Android if you're up for the task and your phone manufacturer allows you to boot what you want. I'd too prefer Apple to be forced by court to open their devices for everything, not holding my breath.

you may be able to breathe one day on that aspect. Sounds like the EU is putting groundwork to do that exact thing on IOS.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#992

Post by johnnyanmac »

sidlls wrote: post #723
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

It depends on if you think of IOS as a commons or as a private OS. And more and more court arguments are leaning towards the commons argument because of its market dominance in the mobile space. Becoming more regarded as a general purpose OS than "just a phone with a store hosted on it".

So IOS may one day not be considered a starbucks, but a park. And you can't hog a park to yourself

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#993

Post by johnnyanmac »

ralfd wrote: post #746
tibbydudeza wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting question - since they charge a flat fee and revenue sharing model based on sales it is not like Google who had a secret deal with Spotify and Netflix.

Honest questions: I thought Playstation and Xbox had "secret" deals? They have their own studios, they buy exclusives, timed exclusives, special promotions, games optimized for platform A but not for B etc?

"secret" deals, sure. They have well known, lesser know, and not known at all to the public practives. The main caveat is that none of them are dominating the console industry, nor necessarily preventing others from competing in the console market. It's just that no one wants to try and compete because it's a vicious market.

We're seeing more handheld PC's, but the days of the Vita or 3DS as dedicated handheld consoles seem to be past us. There's a non-zero chance PC far in the future does the same to regular consoles too.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#994

Post by andrei_says_ »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #990
andrei_says_ wrote: post #976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling is closer to smoking than regular gaming. All the boy’s friends play the game and similar games. It’s an uphill battle and an extraordinary pressure on the parents to control each game that gets played and micromanage to that extend - to the detriment of their relationship with the child, because fighting these intentionally instilled addictive patterns will create upset in the child and tension in the relat…

I agree with you in spirit, but I also can't help but think that most other internet denizens won't be satisfied with just banning the loobox aspects. most of the AAA games industry already moved past that and into battlepasses or flooding a store with direct purchase cosmetics. It's more the nickle and diming people hate, not the actual gambling. And I don't know if we can or should regulate that.

The gambling patterns are related to taking additional action to getting the rewards - like spinning a wheel, choosing to take an additional step risking the current reward for the chance to win another one. That’s gambling, intentionally constructed to be addictive. It changes habits, normalizes addiction and is harmful.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#995

Post by johnnyanmac »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #994
johnnyanmac wrote: post #990

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in spirit, but I also can't help but think that most other internet denizens won't be satisfied with just banning the loobox aspects. most of the AAA games industry already moved past that and into battlepasses or flooding a store with direct purchase cosmetics. It's more the nickle and diming people hate, not the actual gambling. And I don't know if we can or should regulate that.

The gambling patterns are related to taking additional action to getting the rewards - like spinning a wheel, choosing to take an additional step risking the current reward for the chance to win another one. That’s gambling, intentionally constructed to be addictive. It changes habits, normalizes addiction and is harmful.

Sure, and the console industry is already moving past it. It's now just asking you to lay $10-20 for a "season" of a battle pass, where you grind and get more rewards for your grinding. No RNG at all, just one input, and X actions to guarantee Y rewards. No more, no less.

But the games discourse online isn't exactly giving games like Fortnite any slack despite no longer using lootboxes for its monetization. Or on a fighter game (of which few ever used lootboxes) for offering dozens of skins.

That's the dangerous part on what to or not regulate. Do we want thr government regulating how many add-ons or cosmetics a game can sell?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#996

Post by EchoReflection »

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…

worse, Apple and Google worked together (without the public knowing, of course) "as if they were one company".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/apple-goo...

https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/11/35888191/apple-google-wa...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-apple-deal-default-se...

the sources go on and on, which makes sense, I guess. when two of the world's biggest and most powerful companies have interests that overlap (exclude any OS that isn't Android or iOS) collusion seems like a natural choice.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#997

Post by Wowfunhappy »

cyberax wrote: post #300
JieJie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, however, give as much of the product away as you can for free (less $100 a year for developer account) and then Apple is basically paying you to distribute it on their platform. That's definitely not the mafia. If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app. You…

> If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app Basically, you can't make money. Duh. You can't even place a link for a third-party payment system (the case to allow that is on its way to SCOTUS). Apple is a mafia.

> Basically, you can't make money.

Worse, you can't make money and you have to pay the $100 developer fee every year. The developer fee is trivial if it's a business expensive, but quite expensive otherwise!

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#998

Post by bomewish »

Marco Arment has the most interesting take on this, and it's made me change my mind on the topic. The whole post is short and worth reading -- https://marco.org/2021/09/13/future-of-the-app-store -- but the tl;dr is: lots of app stores run by different companies would be worse both for users and developers; Apple is not nearly as bad as Facebook in terms of surveillance, invasions of privacy, dark patterns; and basically 'better the devil you know.' I'm convinced -- surprisingly. Essentially a free-for-all might lead to anarchic piracy rather than an extractive one-party state. Marco prefers the latter and his argument seems kinda compelling.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#999

Post by niutech »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #858
jojobas wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where exactly can I download my bank's app as an APK? Except random shady websites...

APKmirror is not a shady random website. It's well established.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#1000

Post by niutech »

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…

You don't need to have Android/iOS. You can access webmail, bank accounts, Netflix using web browser on an open source platform like Ubuntu Touch or Sailfish OS. I am using both just fine and both support Android apps.
Post reply on HN