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

391–400 of 607 posts

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

#391

Post by tsimionescu »

kelnos wrote: post #105
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.

Sure, but I think it's fair to say "why are you regulating us significantly more than you are regulating our similar competitor?" Android is already more open than iOS; you can already install third-party app stores, where the only hoop you have to jump is agreeing to a warning about installing things from "unknown sources". But yeah, Google doesn't allow rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, nor…

It's simple. There exists a market for app stores on Android, there doesn't exist such a market on iOS. So, Apple can't be said to have a monopoly position in the iOS app distribution market, because, again, such a market doesn't exist, and there is no general obligation to create one (there is a different discussion about the app market, which Epic was attacking and which failed for now).

But on Android, you do have a market for app stores - there is Google, and then there are various bit players (F-Droid, Samsung Store, Amazon Store, and others). And Google is by far the biggest, and using their position to set the rules for all the others, including actively hostile actions like de-listing some apps if they don't offer exclusivity to Google Play, disallowing Google Play installation if the OEM doesn't ship it by default, etc.

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

#392

Post by tsimionescu »

colonelpopcorn wrote: post #283
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.

But it is. For the savvy user you can run whatever you want on an android device.

Which is exactly why the Google case succeeded: Google does have competing app stores, and they are crushing them using anti-competitive practices.

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

#393

Post by bhawks »

The browser should have been the distribution mechanism and user agent sandbox for mobile apps. Unfortunately both OS platforms owned their own browsers and would benefit from controlling app distribution under the guise of protecting app quality.

It is also exceedingly ironic that browsers played such a key role in wrestling control from the dominant windows platform to the benefit of Apple and Google.

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

#395

Post by hulitu »

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.

> 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)

Easily ? No. But yes, you still can do it. Though Google restricted for example Total Commander from installing software and automatically updated it to the latest version even though it was prohibited in settings.

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

#396

Post by tsimionescu »

lolinder wrote: post #208
GeekyBear wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you claim the platform you create is open, but use anticompetitive actions to retain control of it, you end up in a worse legal position than you would have by being clear that the platform is closed. Look at Microsoft. They have been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct related to their open Windows platform in multiple jurisdictions, but not so with XBox. Either never claim your platform is open, or refrain f…

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…

If Google had tried to make an iPhone style ecosystem, all evidence is clear that they would have utterly failed, like almost every other consumer device that Google has tried to promote, and we would have had at least a few more iOS competitors (maybe Windows would have lived? Maybe Samsung would have finished Tizen?). The reason Android succeeded was precisely because it was open and available to multiple OEMs. But that also opens Google up more to anti-competitive scrutiny.

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

#397

Post by unplug8224 »

eru wrote: post #385
ethbr1 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The original iPhone was sold exclusively with an AT&T bundled plan in the US

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

#398

Post by tsimionescu »

nerdix wrote: post #202
to11mtm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent it's an illusion of openness and availability. Want to actually call it an 'Android' device and/or avoid an ugly warning message to your users? [0] Gotta agree to a bunch of Google's terms including preference for their mobile app suite over others. But hey if you want some extra revenue from search you can just agree to not offer a 3rd party app store [1]. Oh also anyone in OHA (most major phone OEMs)…

Yes, Apple has been consistently bad. Google is bad too but Android is still much more open than iOS today even if it has gradually become less open over time. I think punishing the more open platform and not the completely closed one will just incentivize companies to develop completely closed platforms from the beginning. And I don't see how that's actually good for consumers. The best outcome would be to force bot…

This is a bad understanding. First of all, it's much harder to develop a successful fully closed platform than an open one. If Google though they could build an iPhone, they would have. So the legal incentive is completely irrelevant here: with or without it, companies prefer to build closed platforms; with or without it, companies can't do it because it's too hard for them.

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

#399

Post by charles_f »

al_borland wrote: post #173
tencentshill wrote: post #21

Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!

I see where it says Google isn't allowed to do this kind of thing. I hope they were forward thinking enough to ban exclusivity deals across the board, or this is going to turn into a total goat rodeo. The EU has a lot of well-meaning laws, but create quite the mess of unintended consequences.

This is a civil case in the US though

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

#400

Post by bugtodiffer »

ethbr1 wrote: post #25
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."

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.

I really do not see how Android should be opened up more. I can install 3 different app stores in 3 minutes.
Post reply on HN