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

321–330 of 607 posts

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

#321

Post by fennecbutt »

orourke wrote: post #269
ethbr1 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent first mover advantage with the iPhone, it's extremely difficult to see Apple ending up where it is, with a closed ecosystem.

I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins, however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Andr…

60hz lmao

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

#322

Post by eru »

underbiding wrote: post #309
reissbaker wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open. In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of…

The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).

I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?

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

#323

Post by topherPedersen »

Love this, but Apple's the big offender not Google. Google's already pretty open, and they approve most apps. It's not hard to get your app on the Play Store, it's Apple and the App Store that make publishing your apps a nightmare.

Hope to see things start opening up though. Very happy for Epic and developers everywhere.

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

#324

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #241
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lack of understanding of how you were defrauded does not change that you were. This is exactly why the government sometimes steps in to fix things even when a company is considered popular by consumers. Everything you have bought on Android was illegally taxed, and numerous things you bought outside of Android you also overpaid for as companies tried to absorb the abusive fees as well. You didn't "see" the antic…

I think the problem everyone is having is the government is seeing something that isn't there. We don't have a "lack of understanding" but are rather just so much more informed and educated then the legal system on this matter that we came to the correct conclusion while they failed to reach a basic understanding.

This is an incredible example of the hubris and ego of tech nerds. The court got it right, because the issue isn't tech, it's economics. The idea that understanding some code makes you more qualified than a judge to handle antitrust law is laughable.

It doesn't matter that 0.01% of users can technically install F-Droid. Reality, is that 99.99% of people fundamentally can't. Apparently the judge can understand this, and you can't.

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

#325

Post by Dylan16807 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #160
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.

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

> Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

The reason it sounds weird is because you are insisting on wording it a particular way.

They're a duopoly. They're being tried for abusing that duopoly. Nothing rotten there.

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

#326

Post by toast0 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #237
lolinder wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible incentive structure to set up for platforms. I get the reasoning, but I chose Android because it's open and I've never run into any of the anticompetitive problems people claim are so damaging. If Google had known that this was the deal at the beginning, I doubt they'd have created Android the way that they did and I wouldn't have an open platform to use—we'd just have two walled gardens. How is th…

From the TFA > 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 developers set their own prices for apps irrespectiv…

As an Android user, I've paid for two, maybe three? apps. And got a refund on one because the paid version didn't do what I thought it said it did.

The restrictions on non-Google billing did impact my employer, but it was less of a problem in the US as in some other countries where Google only billing meant we couldn't charge users as very few had Google compatible payment methods and Google wouldn't let us use other providers that could accept money with the payment methods people actually had. We had other methods in our apk download, but I recall having to take those out, too.

Of course, Apple made payment go through them, but most Apple can accept payments from most of their users, and a lot of their users have a payment method on file.

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

#327

Post by lern_too_spel »

_imnothere wrote: post #308
lern_too_spel wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is easily seen to be false, but I see it repeated often. The functionality in Google Play Services requires a server. If you don't use Google services, you don't need Play Services. https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages

Apparently you don't know enough about Android, a perfect example of this is eSIM, you simply couldn't use eSIM without Google Play Services.

That functionality was never available in phones with Google builds without Google Play Services, so it doesn't fit GGP's claim. The reason it's not in base AOSP out of the box is that it requires a server, and any carrier can build an implementation for downloading carrier profiles without Google Play Services and any OEM can build an LPA using https://source.android.com/docs/core/connect/esim-overview.

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

#328

Post by Dylan16807 »

SllX wrote: post #238
nijave wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine? I would say not.

Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? I would say not. And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.

> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine?

Is that supposed to be a counterargument?

If you can't replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.

If you can only replace the rendering engine, then you're not able to install your own web browser.

Both of these can easily be true at the same time.

> And it has a rendering engine

Which is replacing the one that was removed. When they used the word "removed" they weren't trying to imply you get a black screen.

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

#329

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> Surely politics has something to do with this decision?

Why? Plenty of judges rule without partisan predictability. This case doesn’t seem to have any more politics involved than any federal case.

If you have evidence of something interesting, sure, bring it up. But “maybe there are other interests involved, find the evidence for me” isn’t a conversation.

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

#330

Post by lmm »

SllX wrote: post #238
nijave wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a web browser still a web browser if you remove the rendering engine? I would say not.

Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? I would say not. And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.

> Is a rendering engine still a web browser if you remove all the chrome and extra features built around the rendering engine? > I would say not.

No, obviously not. If Apple were to allow third-party web rendering engines but disallow third-party web chrome that would be equally ridiculous. But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.

> And it has a rendering engine: the iOS WebKit engine. It’s not Google’s preferred rendering engine and Chrome isn’t my choice of browser well, anywhere at all actually, but it’s still a functional web browser.

It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is), but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".

Post reply on HN