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

Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 607 posts

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#161

Post by to11mtm »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #118
fredgrott wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unlike Google's reply read the OEM terms that they sign....its not open like Google claims....

They got caught doing the same thing Microsoft got caught doing in the 90s with IE/Netscape -- using their monopoly position on one piece of software (Windows, the Google app suite) to prevent their OEMs from shipping another piece of software by default (Netscape, Epic Games Store) that directly competed with their own offering (Internet Explorer, Google Play Store). Since Google and Microsoft both use OEMs, unlike…

> In short, Epic sued and won because Google got between them and Samsung.

This is actually very insightful given the history between Google and Samsung with Tizen.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#162

Post by rahkiin »

callc wrote: post #84
bsimpson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, the original App Store argument was "It would cost a lot more than 30% to mint CDs and sell them in Waldenbooks, so we're doing developers a favor by _only_ charging 30% to distribute."

There are a myriad of points which make this metaphor a insufficient argument at best (at worst intentionally obfuscating the nature of digital publishing and digital marketplaces as having similar physical analogues) in favor of the current app store landscape: 1. AFAIK anyone can manufacture and distribute CDs 2. The argument that anything below the cost to manu CDs is acceptable only holds water if you have an ine…

It was 30% vs whatever parties like Symbian asked at the time. Or other existing platforms like consoles where developers were left with less than 70%.

Safely distributing software was a pain in 2007 and did involve a lot of expensive publishing

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#163

Post by dmvdoug »

For all the people commenting on the discrepancy between this ruling and the one in Apple’s case: now perhaps you see the value of good lawyers. Apple was able to convince the judge in their case to fairly narrowly define the market segment at issue. Google failed to do that here. And no, it’s not as simple as saying they’re the same so this will get overturned on appeal to stay consistent with the Apple ruling. The market segment definition is case-specific and fact-intensive.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#164

Post by mschuster91 »

sigmar wrote: post #96

I've been pretty anti-google on this topic (and a long time fdroid-lover). but this ruling is nuts to me, particularly where it says google "must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps" I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores…

> I don't think we are going to see a healthy competitive marketplace with 4 years of chaos where every app store has the same apps, there's no curation at all or incentive structure for stores to win over app listings, and app stores get created and destroyed at the whims of a random single person.

So what, it's how the music world operates as well. Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube have virtually all that one could ever want to listen (and I'd guess Youtube has the biggest catalog from all the pirates LOL).

I'm all for more mandatory-licensing options, particularly the movie/series space is long overdue for getting a few butts thoroughly kicked - all the streaming sites combined are now more expensive than a cable bill.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#165

Post by [deleted] »

carlosjobim wrote: post #160
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with. Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

[deleted]

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#166

Post by redserk »

carlosjobim wrote: post #160
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with. Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

While the term “monopoly” is being misused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, with basic reading comprehension, that the intent is “seemingly anti-competitive behavior”.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#168

Post by jonny_eh »

mike_d wrote: post #22

Epic's "First Run" program does all the things they got mad at Apple and Google about. You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store. Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without…

> You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments

That's optional. Play Store requirements around payment methods is not.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#169

Post by kbolino »

seany wrote: post #149
Timshel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just allowing alternative stores, it's stuff like: - Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store) - Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store - Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store - Let Android devel…

- 3rd party store auto updates (you need to install some stuff as root in order to get this working on f-droid)

This might explain (or be related to) why when I installed an Amazon app through Amazon's store it would get hijacked by the Play Store version eventually.

Re: Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

#170

Post by [deleted] »

carlosjobim wrote: post #160
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with. Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN