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

Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 219 posts

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#191

Post by UncleMeat »

youseecomrade wrote: post #160
potta_coffee wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently tolerate Google apps on my phone because Android is just open _enough_ for me to get by. If Google were to put walls around Android in this way, I'd never use anything Google ever again.

I can't find the article but I remember reading how Google is closing the platform more and more. That's the reason why many people are forced to use MicroG since things are routed through Google Play Services. So in many ways you already "need" Google in your phone for certain apps to work correctly. There's also a rant from CopperheadOS' twitter about how Google make things worse and worse for ROM developers. I wou…

The alternative is an un-updatable phone that is full of security holes. Remember the good old days when somebody would find a uxss in webview and we'd all just shrug our shoulders at the 80% of users who'd never see the fix because the oems wouldn't ever push updates to people?

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#192

Post by UncleMeat »

ksec wrote: post #159
bdz wrote: post #138

CEO of Epic >The 30% store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70% must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games. There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30% is disproportionate to the cost of the services these store…

How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System? Along with payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service? Google doesn't charge them a cent for using Android. As a matter of fact if you don't like the Google Store, Maps, and Search it has to offer for free, you could have forked the whole thing and tidy up all the loose e…

Also analytics and distribution channels.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#193

Post by ppbutt »

ksec wrote: post #159
bdz wrote: post #138

CEO of Epic >The 30% store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70% must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games. There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30% is disproportionate to the cost of the services these store…

How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System? Along with payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service? Google doesn't charge them a cent for using Android. As a matter of fact if you don't like the Google Store, Maps, and Search it has to offer for free, you could have forked the whole thing and tidy up all the loose e…

30% is outrageous

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#194

Post by ac29 »

potta_coffee wrote: post #146
chrisseaton wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Apple have created and invested in their platforms - it’s not insane for them to make profit from them.

They've created an artificial need for the platforms by closing their systems. Open systems don't require these kinds of platforms. I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.

Perhaps you've missed the point of the article -- Google's platform is open, and you can install whatever you want without using their store, which is the route Epic has taken with Fortnite.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

potta_coffee wrote: post #146
chrisseaton wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Apple have created and invested in their platforms - it’s not insane for them to make profit from them.

They've created an artificial need for the platforms by closing their systems. Open systems don't require these kinds of platforms. I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.

> I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.

True on Android, too. And both platforms have OS vendor app stores.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#196

Post by trumped »

gkoberger wrote: post #11

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…

> A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault.

> I mean, the fact that phone OSes get a cut of everything on their platform is already an insane racket.

isn't it Google's decision to charge insane amounts for apps that they didn't create?

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#197

Post by uvatbc »

628C6l0 wrote: post #67
gkoberger wrote: post #11

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…

That's just the art of writing headlines. How else do they generate online conversation except by stating it in a obviously flawed way provoking people like you to point out the flaw and people with a penchant for "charity" to come to their defense, and so on and so forth? Why are we still falling for this crap?

> Why are we still falling for this crap?

We fall for this because a subset of us has been provoked to point out the obvious flaw in the headline or the summary and another subset has been provoked into defending the part that isn't flawed.

I alternated between feeling like this was a question worth answering and feeling like a dick for answering this with your own words.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#198

Post by kgwgk »

rhacker wrote: post #172
izacus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a few years the media (which has always been very pro-Apple) has internalized the idea, that all your software MUST come from a single corporation controlled walled garden and pay tax to them. The whole concept of being able to install software from a source you choose is now so foreign that they'll speak against it when possible. And unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a lot of HN commenters as well.

here here. Can you imagine that if, back in the early 80s, when PCs and Apple computers were just starting out if companies like Software Etc., Egghead or RadioShack or Fry's or other venues had to get ALL their software (boxed packages) from Apple or IBM (or possibly MS) before they were allowed to sell it? I'm sure IBM and Apple would have benefitted a ton, but companies like Adobe, Id, Epic, Norton, and a slew of…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#199

Post by genericid »

rhacker wrote: post #172
izacus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a few years the media (which has always been very pro-Apple) has internalized the idea, that all your software MUST come from a single corporation controlled walled garden and pay tax to them. The whole concept of being able to install software from a source you choose is now so foreign that they'll speak against it when possible. And unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a lot of HN commenters as well.

here here. Can you imagine that if, back in the early 80s, when PCs and Apple computers were just starting out if companies like Software Etc., Egghead or RadioShack or Fry's or other venues had to get ALL their software (boxed packages) from Apple or IBM (or possibly MS) before they were allowed to sell it? I'm sure IBM and Apple would have benefitted a ton, but companies like Adobe, Id, Epic, Norton, and a slew of…

The problem is that Apple and Google are not trying to give people the ability to download the software they want without catching malware, but to make a profit. If Google were trying to provide that service they would not ban ad blockers from their store. They would not charge arbitary 30%, but whatever operating a software repository actually costs.

The problem here is not a lack of competition. Ultimately, there needs to be one default software repository that people can trust -- you can't have a free-for-all here for the same reason you can't have a free-for-all for software in general. The profit motive is the problem.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#200

Post by 628C6l0 »

uvatbc wrote: post #197
628C6l0 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just the art of writing headlines. How else do they generate online conversation except by stating it in a obviously flawed way provoking people like you to point out the flaw and people with a penchant for "charity" to come to their defense, and so on and so forth? Why are we still falling for this crap?

> Why are we still falling for this crap? We fall for this because a subset of us has been provoked to point out the obvious flaw in the headline or the summary and another subset has been provoked into defending the part that isn't flawed. I alternated between feeling like this was a question worth answering and feeling like a dick for answering this with your own words.

I mean, it was a rhetorical question, which by definition is a question asked not to elicit an answer but to make a point.
Post reply on HN