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

Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 495 posts

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#151

Post by [deleted] »

sulam wrote: post #99
luckylion wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they aren't competing, but merely simulate competition in many markets. Why isn't the app-store-tax getting lower through heavy competition? In many cases, it looks like there's some mutual competition-simulation going. Google launches Google+ to pretend Facebook isn't the only social network, Microsoft launches Bing so Google can say "we don't have a monopoly on search", Google finances Firefox to say the same…

Yes, all capitalism is just a big agreement to channel all the assets to wealthy people. The only one not in on the secret is you.

[deleted]

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#152

Post by dan-robertson »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #124
erhk wrote: post #122

Can't read on mobile without a Twitter account

Twitter changed something recently where they no longer let you view most tweets without an account.

I think you just need to tap the tweet again to see the thread. But you could also use nitter.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#153

Post by LadyCailin »

lozenge wrote: post #7
spicybright wrote: post #6

tbh, isn't it completely in google's right to do this? It's not a regulated market, it's google's store.

That's what the lawsuit is about. "Epic’s complaint alleges that Google’s payment restrictions on the Play Store constitute a monopoly, and thus a violation of both the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act."

Maybe google should move to one year exclusivity on the apps in their App Store?

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#154

Post by MichaelZuo »

jakecopp wrote: post #9

> After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company." ... > This unredacted graf shows that telcos get up to 25% of Google's app sales to keep them from developing rival app stores on the smartphones they sell and service. Insane reading.

I think this is huge news if the practice is still en vogue? And also defeats the point of Epic’s separate app store right? The major carriers could simply demand the same cut from Epic if it ever gets any traction.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#155

Post by MichaelZuo »

Sargos wrote: post #111
ozten wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the more successful DAO or dapps we can study, to evaluate this model?

An example I find interesting and easy to explain is Pool Together which is a no-loss lottery where you can buy $10 in lottery tickets for a chance at a $3,000 weekly prize but if you don't win your tickets still work for the next round and even 10 rounds from now you can withdraw your full $10. It works by putting everyone's money in the same account which earns ~6% interest savings account and the winner actually g…

Is there an example that is not related to gambling or moving around money? As it doesn’t seem to be very productive in countries where online gambling is restricted or regulated…

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#156

Post by jimbob45 »

jakecopp wrote: post #9

> After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company." ... > This unredacted graf shows that telcos get up to 25% of Google's app sales to keep them from developing rival app stores on the smartphones they sell and service. Insane reading.

That’s it, right? That’s the game? There’s no way the DoJ doesn’t have a slam-dunk case with that one quote.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#157

Post by seanmcdirmid »

wayneftw wrote: post #82
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be anticompetitive on their platform as long as their platform doesn’t have a lock on the market. So say, if you didn’t need to buy an iPhone and could buy an android instead, and if that actually happened in practice, Apple could reasonably argue they didn’t have a monopoly on the market even if they had a monopoly in their own platform.

Not when their platform holds the majority of users in the US and when they're colluding with the "competition".

54% is a majority, but its not a vast majority.

> and when they're colluding with the "competition".

Unless you have evidence for that, that's just libel.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#158

Post by cartoonworld »

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35
jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Firefox works fine on iOS

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#159

Post by frumper »

cartoonworld wrote: post #158
NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Firefox works fine on iOS

You mean safari with a custom skin

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#160

Post by Dylan16807 »

giantrobot wrote: post #148
mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

A sibling comment pointed out that you're wrong about the Microsoft case. You're also seemingly under informed about monopolies. One of the core issues in the Microsoft case was that they're a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly affects all players in the market because a majority of the players use Microsoft's OS. They used that leverage against Netscape and many other companies. Apple on the other hand has a…

Apple and Google control almost everything. Horizontally.
Post reply on HN