Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:54 AM UTC

riversflow wrote: post #355

lern_too_spel wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You don’t have GPS satellite data, “location services” without Google Play services. That means a gps lock takes minutes. This data could be stored on the phone, but it’s better for google if you fetch it from them when you need it.

Another example of something that was never in AOSP and so does not fit GGGGP's claim. You can still get your GPS location without Google Play Services exactly the same as you always could.

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

#382

Post by 015a » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:58 AM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #300

015a wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One counter-take to this is the web itself: There's no curation or incentive structure to the web, yet it thrives in ways far outpacing the walled garden app stores.

and likewise, 90% of people still converge onto some dozen websites per region anyway. If people really want that "one true platform", they will congregate and make that platform a monopoly. Against their best interests in my experience, but humanity sometimes need to re-learn the same pitfalls every generation.

I think that's a critical piece that anyone opposing a more free and open mobile computing paradigm needs to recognize.

We point to PC gaming as a horrible state of affairs no one in the mobile world wants; but it really isn't. There were a half-dozen storefronts a few years ago. Today: Everyone is on Steam. There's EGS if you play Fortnite. I think Rockstar still has their own stuff, maybe? A couple blizzard games are still only on battle.net. Xbox has their app for Game Pass, but all their games are also on Steam. That's... it. Steam won. Its never not won.

It turns out that markets love centralization. Its an efficiency thing.

Mobile will be the same. Epic will have their store. A few others, maybe. You'll still download all the apps you care about from the App Store. Your user experience won't change (unless you want to give Fortnite a try).

What might change is: It gives a pressure point developers can leverage against Apple to negotiate better terms. Their services revenue will drop... maybe.

I say "maybe" because opening platforms and reducing prices also tends to grow the overall pie. See, there are companies like Netflix who refuse to support Apple IAP for subscriptions because the terms are unfavorable to their business. If those terms became more favorable: 10% of a million is more than 30% of zero. There are companies like Adobe and AutoDesk that refuse to build any meaningful software for the iOS and iPadOS platforms, because (in part) they would be willingly sacrificing the agency of their business to Tim Cook (for 70% of all sales; a penance). With storefront options: You might have to download the Adobe Storefront, but you'd, at least, have After Effects. No one reasonable would pick "not having After Effects" over being given the choice between using After Effects with Adobe's inevitably shit launcher/storefront and not.

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

#383

Post by SllX » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:02 AM UTC

mvdtnz wrote: post #361

SllX wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s only because you can’t understand that I don’t want a package manager for my package managers. I just want to install the damn software and be done with it; and I’m pretty happy with the way Apple runs the App Store as an iPhone customer , even though I think some of the restrictions are also senseless as viewed through that prism and their developer relations has been a dumpster fire for close to 10 years now…

> I just want to install the damn software and be done with it So use the built-in app store, like you are doing today.

If every App I currently use and will want to use in the future continues to be found in the App Store, that’s the plan.

The possible future where that plan goes off the rails is if developers start pulling their software off the App Store and stop following Apple’s rules because they can. Right now they can’t while remaining iPhone developers.

Like I said, there’s a lot that’s a dumpster fire with developer relations between Apple and App Store developers, but you always know where Apple stands:

1. Apple

2. Apple’s Customers

3. Developers

Yeah I’d like them to loosen up some of the restrictions, but it’s still to my advantage as an iPhone customer that developers who choose to develop for iPhones from the smallest to the very largest to even the government are forced to deal with Apple on Apple’s terms to distribute software.

Apple’s dumpster fire in developer relations is also only half the story over the last decade; a lot of the largest developers of the most popular apps on the App Store have also been at the forefront of innovating new and creative ways to try and circumvent even the smallest limitations on iPhones leading to Apple spending the better part of the decade coming up with new APIs, new entitlements and new legal contracts walking this tightrope between enabling or keeping enabled useful APIs while also protecting user privacy and security. It’s not an easy task they’ve taken up, and short of the government literally outlawing most of the surveillance-oriented business practices a lot of Apple’s peers engage in (practices which the government also benefits from), this is basically the next best thing.

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

#384

Post by cyberax » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:08 AM UTC

nicce wrote: post #106

cyberax wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Epic is offering a different pricing model that might or might not be more advantageous to developers That is literally what competition should look like.

From the judges decisions: > Google also can’t: > Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first

There's nothing wrong with limited exclusivity deals if you are not a monopolist. And the problem with Google was not their exclusivity, but that EVERYBODY was forced to do it or jump through hoops with side-loading.

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

#385

Post by eru » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:53 AM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #332

eru wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple doesn't even have any data plans, do they? I mean Google sometimes plays at being an ISP with projects like Loon or Google Fibre, but Apple has never done that?

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

#386

Post by jychang » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:53 AM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #217

wolpoli wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Apple isn't usually the first mover, though. It's not like the Mac was the first desktop computer, or the iPhone was the first smartphone, or the Apple Watch was the first smartwatch. Apple usually ends up with their market position whether or not they're the first mover.

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

#387

Post by jychang » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:54 AM UTC

brookst wrote: post #375

tiledjinn wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future. Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.

That’s splitting hairs. By that logic nobody ever wins when they defend a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just fail to prove their point and different plaintiffs and/or different evidence might prevail in the future.

Well, being dismissed "with prejudice" exists.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice

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

#388

Post by eru » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:54 AM UTC

WanderPanda wrote: post #336

eru wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, though touchscreens weren't exactly an Apple invention either.

I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.

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

#389

Post by Frieren » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 6:00 AM UTC

So many comments advocating for centralized tightly controlled technology.

Capitalism and freedom are truly dead in the name of small short-term conveniences. Or, most probably, invested interest in increasing share value for big-tech.

If the USA decides that monopolies are the only way it is going to lose the tech race. The death of AT&T created some chaos but a lot of opportunities for technological and business advancement.

Breaking all monopolies is the only way forward for a healthy competitive economy. Big share value gains just show that the system is not working. That there is no competition, no choice, just a rent-seeking economy that reduces value at the cost of everybody.

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

#390

Post by tsimionescu » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 6:09 AM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #333

nijave wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monopo…

You are ignoring the relevant market. Sure, Google and Apple are competitors in the smartphone market (where they have a very dangerous duopoly, but let's leave that aside). But they each have a monopoly in the software distribution market for their respective platforms. Additionally, Google has a monopoly position in the smartphone OS market: if you want to build a smartphone, Google Android is basically the only option in town (Apple doesn't sell or license iOS, so it's not a competitor at all in this market).

Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.