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

421–430 of 607 posts

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

#421

Post by johnisgood »

bad_user wrote: post #357
immibis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.

I'm reading all the arguments below for why Google just appears open, while they aren't, and they are bullshit. Go here, download and install the APK: https://f-droid.org/en/ You now have a third party app repository on your phone. And actually every Samsung device comes with their own app store installed in addition to Google Play. It's not perfect, Play having the privilege to automatically install updates, but goo…

It is bizarre, because besides having F-Droid, you could just as well install APKs from Play Store without the Play Store using APKMirror, etc.

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

#422

Post by rickdeckard »

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…

As of today, there is no player in the Smartphone space who has even remotely the amount of secured income to come up with a similarly volume-scaled device, and there is little incentive for anyone to enter this space.

A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces.

So how would this normally work?

--> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate.

But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as:

1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them

2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and

3.) for Android you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start.

That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, and needs to be (wait for it:) regulated to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services.

But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...

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

#423

Post by flacebo »

> Google also can’t:

> Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first

That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit.

Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers.

Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.

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

#424

Post by pnt12 »

mike_d wrote: post #22

Epic's "First Run" program does all the things they got mad at Apple and Google about. You don't have to pay any license fees for Unreal Engine if you use Epic exclusively for payments. They give you 100% revshare for 6 months if you agree to not ship your game on any other app store. Let's not kid ourselves, Epic never cared about consumer choice or a fair playing field, they only want the ability to profit without…

Their vision, which I disagree with, of customer choice, is that its store is an alternative to Steam. Probably they justify their exclusives by not being a monopoly, which gets weird: steam has the monopoly numbers, but epic has the monopoly practices.

They got a few customers from their giveaways - they should stick to those and further improving their store, maybe some people will actually want to use it.

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

#425

Post by mu53 »

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 being overly semantic. There is a monopoly and duopoly, and regardless of the number of companies involved, antitrust laws can be used to break up these businesses and prevent anti-competitive practices to encourage market growth.

The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effectively for lay person conversations, using monopoly where more technical terms like duopoly is okay

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

#426

Post by bayindirh »

flacebo wrote: post #423

> Google also can’t: > Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first That's exactly what Epic did trying to make their store happen. They're not the good guys, they just want part of the profit. Other than that, I see this as a win for other developers and consumers. Although I don't think this is over, Google will do everything to fight this.

Epic was never "the hand of good faith" in these fights. They just want more money.

From engine wars to app-store wars, why I get the same feeling 20 years later?

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

#427

Post by SllX »

dmvdoug wrote: post #413
SllX wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cases aren’t decided purely by the law. They’re also decided on the facts, and the facts are what are entered into the court record. It is also a fact observable to anyone outside any court of law that while Google sells phones, their main relationship with Android is as a vendor-neutral OS developer that licenses the OS out and takes responsibility for its maintenance and a services provider that required favoring t…

What do you think litigators do? Their whole job is figuring out how to elicit, marshal, introduce and connect the facts that will prove their case. That’s just what being a trial lawyer is . The facts are not just out there and whoever happens to have the better facts on their side wins. Litigators have to be able to identify and interrogate relevant facts, prepare witnesses and documents to introduce them, then sha…

> What do you think litigators do?

You start off strong but for the first two and a third paragraphs maybe about two and half paragraphs in total, you wrote we’re not actually in any disagreement. So… yes.

I’m not really co-signing the rest but I’m also not in any mood to argue about the off-topic jabs against SCOTUS at the moment.

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

#428

Post by johnisgood »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #324
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

But you said they technically can. Can you technically do this on iOS? Lack of technical knowledge means jack shit. Write documentation for laymen as to how to do it, because they could; make it simpler for them if you so wish. Or can I make a website that has a direct link (just a tap away) to an APK and have users install that on Android? What about an app for iOS? It is a matter of "difficult" (arguable) vs "impossible", is it not?

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

#429

Post by pnt12 »

015a wrote: post #382
johnnyanmac wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

The story about pc stores is way off. First there was steam, and for many years it was the only store.

Many launchers came to be, with half assed community features. They didn't want a thriving marketplace, they wanted a piece of the pie. People hated them and they died.

Recently epic store came, with a billion dollar Corp behind, and they are fighting the long battle. The free games are a nice thing (usually older offers or curated indie stuff), but the exclusive business sucks. Luckily it seems unpopular, and fewer brands esnt to adopt it - some are so strong they can do it, but others found out that they can lose their loyal costumers and fade out, eg Borderlands.

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

#430

Post by carlosjobim »

mu53 wrote: post #425
carlosjobim wrote: post #333

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. 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 being overly semantic. There is a monopoly and duopoly, and regardless of the number of companies involved, antitrust laws can be used to break up these businesses and prevent anti-competitive practices to encourage market growth. The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effec…

In your comment above you've suggested two terms that fit better: "Duopoly" and "cartel".

Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?

To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.

This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.

Post reply on HN