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

331–340 of 607 posts

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

#331

Post by nixosbestos »

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.

The court having asinine double-standards when it comes to Apple? What's their HN account? edit: the replies basically just reinforcing the point, absolute :chefskiss:

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

#332

Post by ethbr1 »

eru wrote: post #319
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.

Only: the iPhone did not have first mover advantages. There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.

Apps weren't the iPhone's first mover advantage. It was a quality data plan, browser, and hardware to support them.

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

#333

Post by carlosjobim »

nijave wrote: post #227
carlosjobim wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores. Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar…

> That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.

That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.

Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.

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

#334

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#335

Post by johnnyanmac »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #316
johnnyanmac wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail the see the correlation. Epic is synergizing with its platform that is a tiny fraction of its market and its engine that is also not a monopoly (Unity still the most used engine). This context does indeed matter a lot. Hard to lock out competition when your competition is 8x the market share. >Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field of course not. But enemy of my enemy. As of now their a…

> synergizing with its platform That's some beautiful corpspeak. "Your honor, it is not anticompetitive practice, it is synergizing with our platform"

> This context does indeed matter a lot. Hard to lock out competition when your competition is 8x the market share.

If you're a new company and lack any monopoly power to abuse, I don't see the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing alternative strategies to compete.

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

#336

Post by WanderPanda »

eru wrote: post #319
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.

Only: the iPhone did not have first mover advantages. There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.

+ being early on capacitive touchscreens and multi-touch

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

#337

Post by carlosjobim »

o11c wrote: post #211
carlosjobim wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The word "monopoly" is irrelevant for many of the laws involved.

You're probably right about that. It seems to be a misunderstanding of words mostly in online discussion.

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

#338

Post by protimewaster »

wokwokwok wrote: post #265
protimewaster wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

? It’s like putting an android apk file on your website for an app. If you’re giving it away for free to friends, sure. If not, how do you sell it? How do you stop people stealing it? How do people find out about it? Obviously, you the answer is usually “you write your own installer / updater” and do your own marketing. Maybe that’s fun, and there’s something to be said for owning the entire stack… but it’s a loooot…

I was thinking more just use a third party service like GOG. But, yeah, I guess you could write your own.

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

#339

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jasoneckert wrote: post #292

The most interesting bit for me was "I won’t discuss the Apple case more than this brief outline since I’m ethically bound." This included a link to: https://www.theverge.com/authors/sean-hollister/archives/38 Did his wife sign an Apple NDA that applies to family members? Or does he not want to anger Apple out of fear of retaliation towards his wife? Either way, I don't see how the word "ethics" applies to either sit…

So probably more than half of his household income comes from Apple, so there's a conflict of interest. The ethical choice is not to "try to be neutral", but simply to acknowledge that someone else who actually is neutral is more qualified to report on that topic.

It's like how judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a stock portfolio including one party to the case.

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

#340

Post by crazygringo »

chesong wrote: post #233
crazygringo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I decide which store is best for me when the only store I can get Spotify from is the Spotify store? And the only store with Instagram is the Meta store? If every store had to make every app available, then sure I'd have choice and maybe that could be super cool. But nobody's talking about that. We're talking about a world where major corporations will make their apps available only through their own stores a…

I can definitely see that happening, but there have been examples of where large companies support broader market access over exclusivity. For example, Google Maps isn't limited to Android, even though it could drive more Android sales. Instead, it's available on iOS because the potential market loss outweighs the benefits of exclusivity. Companies are unlikely to limit apps to their own stores if the cost of shrinki…

But Google Maps is on iOS because there's hundreds of dollars worth of friction in buying a new phone. Google knows people won't leave iOS just to use Google Maps.

In contrast, installing another app store is just a few taps. Consumers want the app, and then will be forced into a situation where they've got 10 or 15 different app stores installed to support the 20 apps they use, because no corporation wants another corporation taking a percentage of payments or controlling app review.

It will be lovely.

Post reply on HN