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

401–410 of 607 posts

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

#401

Post by sbuk »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #275
xethos wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing happening on non-Google hardware. Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do tha…

> Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage Google incentivized the OEMs to do that. Amazon could have incentivized OEMs to do that also, but the business plan that Amazon pursued did not involve third parties building their own Kindle devices. > Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. This has never been true for Android i…

Microsoft also “incentivized” OEMs to not install competing browsers by threatening to remove their OEM licensing. Didn’t Google do something similar?

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

#402

Post by forty »

bugtodiffer wrote: post #400
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.

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

They could preinstall a bunch of competitors and you'd choose the ones you keep at first startup (like Microsoft had to do with browser). This would allow fairer competition for competing stores.

Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.

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

#403

Post by raxxorraxor »

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 believe it is too late for that and we are stuck with bad mobile OS. Additional stores don't solve the problem of hardware not being open at all.

People have accepted that either manufacturer or mobile provider owns their phone. You do not have administrative rights and some apps even disallow being run in a more free environment.

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

#405

Post by sbuk »

whimsicalism wrote: post #172
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In-app revenue tax was instituted in 2011 However, Apple still collected a 30% fee, just manually. It wasn't an integrated system, but you had to sign a legal agreement for the kickback.

> However, Apple still collected a 30% fee, just manually. It wasn't an integrated system, but you had to sign a legal agreement for the kickback. Source on this prior to 2011? I don't believe it is true but I might be mistaken.

https://youtu.be/xo9cKe_Fch8?t=214

Video is from 2008, literally took me all of 5 minutes to find.

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

#406

Post by FrozenSynapse »

SllX wrote: post #371
lmm wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

> But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important. Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink. > but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser". You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they t…

>WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.

But we should have the option to choose. Apple is very anti-consumer, making all the choices (often bad ones) for us, giving us none. The court should rule to open Apple more. Android is open enough that you can do whatever you want, yet not complicated enough so people get confused with all the options you have.

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

#407

Post by eru »

unplug8224 wrote: post #397
eru wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OK. Was the data plan exclusive to the iPhone? (Or was it just the iPhone being exclusive to the data plan.)

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

#408

Post by bugtodiffer »

forty wrote: post #402
bugtodiffer wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They could preinstall a bunch of competitors and you'd choose the ones you keep at first startup (like Microsoft had to do with browser). This would allow fairer competition for competing stores. Also they need to make sure the playstore is not required for the phone to work correctly which I'm not sure is the case on stock Androids currently.

Sadly, most users should have Play Store and nothing else IMO. I respect the Play security team.

What I could see: make Play Store and Play Services uninstallable like any other app.

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

#409

Post by benoau »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #147
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.

Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?

In the coming weeks or months the judge in the Epic case will decide if gacha games can link directly to their own payments without Apple, that threatens 70% of spending on the App Store in Apple's worst-case scenario (per the Epic case it was revealed 10% of users do 70% of spending, in such games). Minus the tens of billions in annual fees on gacha games, and with litigation and regulation around the world I think they will just abandon their most contentious restrictions.

On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year.

On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition.

I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...

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

#410

Post by SllX »

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #406
SllX wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important. Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink. > but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser". You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they t…

>WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older. But we should have the option to choose. Apple is very anti-consumer, making all the choices (often bad ones) for us, giving us none. The court should rule to open Apple more. Android is open enough that you can do whatever you want, ye…

I agree we should have the option to choose, but I’m not going to consign any statement that it should be done by government force. That’s reckless and unnecessary.

Also Epic lost their case, so “the Court” isn’t in a position to do anything here. Even if they were, there is no law on the books anywhere in the country to serve as the basis for what you want the courts to do and someone new would have to bring a case, with standing.

The Feds are trying, I don’t remember web browsers being part of their filing, but it’s also been a while since I read it so I may have forgotten; but the problem is not only did Epic lose their case, they lost it in a way that thoroughly screwed over the Feds who were trying to build an antitrust case against Apple by getting a Federal district court to rule that Apple isn’t a monopoly, and if they can’t get to a monopoly ruling under a different district court that will stand up to appeal, they’re going to have a hard time getting Apple or a court to force Apple to agree to anything.

Post reply on HN