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

251–260 of 607 posts

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

#251

Post by johnnyanmac »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #27
whimsicalism wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged

I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.

The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store.

The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.

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

#252

Post by elevatedastalt »

ethbr1 wrote: post #214
lolinder wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tying Google's hands while giving Apple a clean bill of health isn't going to increase competition, it's going to solidify Apple's lead in the US. The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to…

The important competition isn't Google v Apple. It's everyone else v Google and/or Apple. Ironically, forcing this onto Google might be the best thing for Android, as it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple, but costs Google too much revenue to ever do it if left to their own decision.

Then why is there one result for Google and the opposite one for Apple?

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

#253

Post by makeitdouble »

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…

Their local store surviving and expanding their operation during these 3 years could be enough of a benefit.

The store can plan for what they'll do 3 years later, so progressively injecting IKEA competitors in the mix and getting people to know the other options could lead to a durable business. Especially if IKEA loses enough sales that they'd want to keep selling their goods in third party stores to keep shelf space from competition.

To get out of the metaphor: if alternative app stores become big enough to thrive on their own from this initiative, app makers will keep pushing their apps other there. In particular this whole scheme assumes some level of compatibility, so the burden should be light enough.

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

#254

Post by Brimaldo »

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.

[dead]

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

#255

Post by RevEng »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #192
immibis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Many of the fundamental apps on Android, and the Play store itself, can only be used under license. Android OSP does not contain many things that you would expect to be part of Android.

Also, most modern devices won't even let you flash your own OS, even a modified copy of Android. It's irrelevant if the source code is available if you can't actually run it anywhere. It's the TeVo case all over again.

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

#256

Post by elevatedastalt »

wiseowise wrote: post #146
jimbob45 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming services

Streaming services what? I can download every streaming service from Play Store.

What users wanted: One streaming service from where you can stream or rent any movie or show available in the world.

What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.

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

#257

Post by rezonant »

mvdtnz wrote: post #135
zamadatix wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.

Well because it's their competitor, who now has a huge legally-enforced advantage.

A meaningless advantage.

Apple does not compete with Google to distribute apps on Android and Google does not compete with Apple to distribute apps on iOS.

The value (to consumers) of the App Store is not that it is so locked down, but rather that it is the only way for people to put apps on the phones they have already bought.

But wait, you might say, Apple actually can open an app store on Android and compete with Google now!

But c'mon, it'll be a cold day in hell when Apple helps make the case that these rules should also apply to them.

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

#258

Post by kllrnohj »

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…

Because Steam is good and EGS sucks donkey balls. It's slow as shit, crashes randomly, and is missing boatloads of features. People don't object when a different store brings actual value, like GoG. They object because Epic's version of competition is just dump trucks of cash thrown at game publishers - that doesn't help the consumer any.

It's not unlike everyone here that loves to champion Apple even when the article is about Apple being the most openly evil it can possibly be, except so far Valve hasn't really done anything like that.

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

#259

Post by wokwokwok »

ethbr1 wrote: post #214
lolinder wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tying Google's hands while giving Apple a clean bill of health isn't going to increase competition, it's going to solidify Apple's lead in the US. The competition that actually matters is between whole platforms, it's only Epic's lawyers who want everyone to get fixated on the idea that the app store markets are the whole story (or even really a significant portion of the story). I could totally get behind efforts to…

The important competition isn't Google v Apple. It's everyone else v Google and/or Apple. Ironically, forcing this onto Google might be the best thing for Android, as it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple, but costs Google too much revenue to ever do it if left to their own decision.

> it's the openness the platform really needed to compete against Apple

It’s hard to believe the best way to compete with Apple is by being more open then they are.

If that worked, we would all be running some unix os on our phones.

It’s clearly an utterly false premise.

This is going to hurt google and do literally nothing to Apple, except perhaps scare some people into the “saftey” of its curated ecosystem.

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

#260

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

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

Given the FTC going after Amazon, I think it's a relevant question to consider. these cases will inevitably influence if Apple is gone after, but who goes after them will depend a lot on the US's government.

Post reply on HN