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

31–40 of 607 posts

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

#31

Post by ethbr1 »

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…

All I care about is having some healthy competition in the marketplace again.

If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine.

Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.

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

#32

Post by bitwize »

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…

There were lots of times Microsoft filed amicus briefs against patent trolls and the like, claiming the need for a "free and open internet" or "open standards in the X space", while still in the hot seat for bundling Internet Explorer.

Large companies will clamor for freedom and consumer choice when it benefits them. They will put a hammerlock on consumers when it benefits them.

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

#33

Post by meiraleal »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
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."

[flagged]

> Initially, there wasn't a requirement to ship Android with an app store

That's exactly the same case for iphones, Steve Jobs initial plan (and execution) was to install apps from Safari, the prototype of PWAs.

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

#34

Post by whimsicalism »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
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."

[flagged]

> 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 when the iPhone was created, just App Store purchases. In-app revenue tax was instituted in 2011

e: No clue why this is downvoted

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

#35

Post by talldayo »

cma wrote: post #15
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.

> and where you can easily install apps through other means When the lawsuit started, apps installed like this couldn't be automatically updated without going through the scare screens again manually.

Which scare screens? I've sideloaded on Android for nearly a decade now, and the only one I've seen is the reasonable warning about third-party app sources when enabling it for the first time.

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

#36

Post by gjsman-1000 »

meiraleal wrote: post #33
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Initially, there wasn't a requirement to ship Android with an app store That's exactly the same case for iphones, Steve Jobs initial plan (and execution) was to install apps from Safari, the prototype of PWAs.

True; except that the iPhone didn't allow apps from anywhere, at all.

Consider damages, from a legal perspective. Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your proprietary 3D Printer? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your dishwasher? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for an ecosystem which is, and was, always closed?

No, no, and (currently) no.

You absolutely can claim damages though for building up an ecosystem that then turns into a bait-and-switch. Case: Android.

Edit: Also, the commenter below is wrong. Steve Jobs talked about the 30% cut in the very introduction of the App Store. The 30% cut was also required on all in-app purchases, but by a legal agreement instead of an automated collection method.

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

#37

Post by thaumasiotes »

aaronax wrote: post #11
ZunarJ5 wrote: post #2

Bumping Droidify because it's great! https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.looker.droidify/ https://github.com/Droid-ify/client

So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via F-Droid? Seems complicated.

> the better F-Droid client

How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.

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

#38

Post by bsimpson »

ethbr1 wrote: post #31
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…

All I care about is having some healthy competition in the marketplace again. If that takes tying Google's hands behind its back for a few years, fine. Taking a 30% cut should have been, prima facie, evidence of monopoly abuse.

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."

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

#39

Post by vitus »

DannyBee wrote: post #10
bagels wrote: post #5

So, then, Apple is next?

No, apple won on the exact same claims in front of a different judge.

That's an unfair characterization of the situation.

Epic v Google was decided in a jury trial, whereas Epic v Apple was decided by a judge (as preferred by both parties).

The other big difference is that Tim Cook wasn't caught trying to destroy evidence, so the judge in that case had no reason to sanction Apple.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...

https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2023/05/01/lets-not-just-cha...

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

#40

Post by jncfhnb »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18
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."

[flagged]

> 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.

The problem is not a monopoly on hardware. The problem is gatekeeping access to software markets.

Post reply on HN