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

191–200 of 607 posts

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

#191

Post by wolpoli »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92
ethbr1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it worse." Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.

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.

Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing.

What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?

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

#192

Post by Phrodo_00 »

immibis wrote: post #183
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.

Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.

> Google appears open yet is closed in practice

How is Android closed in practice?

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

#194

Post by Urgo »

jiggawatts wrote: post #78
xnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculous. From Google's reply ( https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-... ): "These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple — even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading."

Next, EBay should be allowed to use Amazon warehouses and their distribution network.

Ebay sellers already can do this [1] [2]

[1] https://www.edesk.com/blog/ebay-fulfillment-amazon-fba/

[2] https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon

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

#195

Post by TiredOfLife »

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…

Epic doesn't make phones that run Epic made OS.

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

#196

Post by dugite-code »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #13

I’m confused, I’ve been using 3rd party app stores on Android for years now?

Not as a first class citizen.

* It's only recently you could have unattended updates of applications.

* It was not possible to distribute additional app stores in Google play, third party stores had to utilize sideloading which includes "scary" warning messages

* Googles terms and conditions essentially required the play store be installed by default by vendors.

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

#197

Post by SllX »

freedomben wrote: post #159
Electricniko wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked the absurdity of one of the top comments on the Verge article, which was that under the requirements of this ruling, Apple could open up an app store for Android and Google would be forced to put it on their Play Store.

Meanwhile, Google can't even put their own wildly popular web browser on the Apple app store

Chrome is on there and people still use it. It’s just not using Blink. Web browser ≠ rendering engine.

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

#198

Post by protimewaster »

isatty wrote: post #177
protimewaster wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure why people would actively want their game to require either EGS or Steam, though, even if it's convenient. EGS has business practices that drive a lot of people crazy, and Steam has an awful security track record and was also convicted of anticompetitive pricing. (Though people seem to like Steam's business practices even with that conviction, which also always struck me as a little weird.)

It seems like not requiring either one would be the more neutral, agreeable position to take.

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

#199

Post by NotPractical »

scarface_74 wrote: post #103
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.

Yes because Google said there platform was “open” and then changed the rules. Apple buyers knew what they were getting beforehand. There is Supreme Court precedent for this

This comes up a lot but when did Google say their platform was "open"? Maybe a few times in the early days when Google was still considered "cool" in hacker circles, but probably not in consumer-facing advertising? Moreover, "open" can mean a lot of things. I don't think I ever signed an agreement with Google that promised me source code for Android or the ability to sideload on my Android phone?

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

#200

Post by immibis »

throw653649 wrote: post #171
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's HN, so we're not allowed to acknowledge it
Post reply on HN