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

171–180 of 607 posts

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

#171

Post by throw653649 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #153
throw653649 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't usually care about politics at all but is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? The previous president doesn't seem to like Apple very much (and his administration filed DOJ v. Google #1 near the end), but at the same time the current administration's DOJ was responsible for filing the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit. Edit: Can the downvoter please explain…

> is there any concrete evidence supporting either potential future administration being tougher on Apple? Trump’s trade war with China would probably hurt Apple. But his allies’ plans to gut federal regulatory powers and cut corporate taxes still make him a net friend to one of the world’s richest corporations. Note that the FTC and DoJ remain independent agencies [1]. > Can the downvoter please explain why you down…

> But a partisan aside about a judicial decision on a case between private parties is off topic

Surely politics has something to do with this decision? These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The judge presiding over this case was appointed by Barack Obama and generally government deregulation is something that Republicans advocate for.

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

#172

Post by whimsicalism »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #52
whimsicalism wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's claim is simple: The monopoly was from the very beginning, when the iPhone had 0.0% market share. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would have failed. If developers didn't like it, the iPhone would have failed. Has Apple unfairly done anything new now that they have a monopoly? No. Did Apple raise their 30% royalty to 70% when they had a monopoly? No. Apple did not have a 30% cut for in-app purchases w…

> In-app revenue tax was instituted in 2011 However, Apple still collected a 30% fee, just manually. It wasn't an integrated system, but you had to sign a legal agreement for the kickback.

> However, Apple still collected a 30% fee, just manually. It wasn't an integrated system, but you had to sign a legal agreement for the kickback.

Source on this prior to 2011? I don't believe it is true but I might be mistaken.

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

#173

Post by al_borland »

tencentshill wrote: post #21

Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!

I see where it says Google isn't allowed to do this kind of thing. I hope they were forward thinking enough to ban exclusivity deals across the board, or this is going to turn into a total goat rodeo.

The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.

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

#175

Post by to11mtm »

kelnos wrote: post #116
lovethevoid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically, and the Play Store has triple the amount of downloads that the App Store has. This gives it far less lenience than Apple got in the EU, where it isn't even as dominant as in the US. Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. Also Amazon was a key reason why the ruling i…

> Android has far more users both globally and in the US specifically Globally, yes. Not in the US, though. iOS sits at around 57%, with Android at around 42%. > Apple also has the benefit of being a sole operator of its platform, whereas Android and the Play Store aren't Google-only. But yes, I think this is the key reason why Google and Apple are being treated differently by the law. I think that's garbage, though,…

To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability.

Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs) can't make a product with a fork without getting into hot water...

To be clear I hate them both and miss the future that could have been with Maemo. As it stands however Apple is just being consistent and having full ownership, whereas Google is arguably strong-arming other manufacturers in a way that limits consumer choice, even if it is a bit more open.

[0] - AARD Code, anyone?

[1] - Smells of MSFT/Intel Bundling/exclusivity Rebates that resulted in various levels of antitrust action/settlements

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

#176

Post by scotty79 »

tmtvl wrote: post #6

Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't? Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.

There's no F-Droid in Play Store

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

#177

Post by isatty »

protimewaster wrote: post #104
LadyCailin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will find it deliciously ironic and welcomed if precedents set by Epic are eventually used against them. The even more hilarious news though is that apparently PC users hate their platform so much though, that exclusivity on Epic is perhaps more of a liability. I read the other day that that new open world Star Wars game had “disappointing” sales because of that.

It's strange to me, because there's literally more competition in the space, but people are unhappy about it. PC games used to regularly be Steam exclusive for years on end, and now games are often available on multiple stores within months or a year from release, but people are for some reason unhappy about this fact. For example, Borderlands 2 (on PC) was Steam exclusive for something like 7 years and nobody seemed…

That’s because people don’t actually give a rats ass about competition directly. They care about _cost_ AND _convenience_. Steam is great on both fronts and you don’t have to create yet another account or have another buggy pos launcher on your computer.

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

#178

Post by al_borland »

sigmar wrote: post #150
m463 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where every app store has the same apps Can't you buy dyson vacuums at the dyson store, at target, and on amazon? Personally, this is making android phones a lot more interesting.

dyson doesn't sell third party stuff. If ikea was forced to sell all their chairs at every store, but only for 3 years. are people looking for chairs going to have better options for where to get chairs at the end of the 3 years? I think they'll just be confused and go to their previous buying habits (namely their favorite furniture store or google/epic/samsung app stores). I expect a mess with a lot of unintended co…

And what happens at the end of the 3 years? If apps are pulled, are people who downloaded the apps through those alt-stores going to lose access to updates, causing security issues or a support nightmare when the users don't see new features?

We'll see Android users needing to have multiple app stores just to get all the apps they want/need, along with the updates. From a user experience point of view, that sounds worse, even if the competition is meant to make things better.

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

#179

Post by qwertox »

Next up in the TODO list:

Force Google to open source Google Play Services and allow users to choose which which publisher's version of it they want to use.

That thing has become a huge proprietary spyware blob and without it the device is nearly useless. It's nearly obligatory for developers to code against it.

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

#180

Post by derkades »

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)

Since Android 12, third party app stores can auto-update apps
Post reply on HN