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

491–500 of 607 posts

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

#491

Post by cobalt60 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #219
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.

While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative paym…

Sideloading and ability to disable including system app (--user 0) have never been easier. Its the PlayProtect which being disabled still insists on scanning apps intrusively and constantly nagging you while installing apps either package installer or side loading.

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

#492

Post by riddley »

zmmmmm wrote: post #219
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.

While I agree with you in principle, in practice Google makes side loading so convoluted and scary that I think they do need / deserve some censure here. The fact you have to go deep into settings, toggle weird settings that tell you how dangerous it is to side load and then it toggles the setting back after you put it on without asking you - this is not all that different to Apple letting you use an alternative paym…

Does Apple make it easy?

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

#493

Post by NotPractical »

xenadu02 wrote: post #89
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.

Not commenting on anything else about this but only pointing out that the law treats a company that sells a complete widget to the end user very differently from a company that sells a piece to someone who then sells the finished widget to the end user. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate reasoning from principles around any of this stuff. They just want to be able to do X, Y, or Z and any ad-hoc law or court ru…

"Principles" as in arbitrary precedents set by bribed politically-motivated lawmakers and judges.

No, people are correctly pointing out the fact that this is blatantly unfair. You are claiming that 2+2=5 because a judge said so.

If you are concerned about the "consequences" maybe you should start thinking about how open platforms are now legally disadvantaged to closed platforms.

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

#494

Post by vel0city »

ethbr1 wrote: post #459
eru wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It was exclusive to the iPhone, in that the iPhone + ATT plan was the only unlimited data plan you could get at release on a non-carrier controlled general purpose smartphone. Which is to say, not one that locked away features and functionality (ringtones! games!) to create additional revenue channels for carriers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but per memory Jobs used iPhone exclusivity to crack carrier "Our pipes" model…

> in that the iPhone + ATT plan was the only unlimited data plan you could get at release on a non-carrier controlled general purpose smartphone.

I had unlimited data on non-carrier controlled phones pre-iPhone on AT&T, and it was far cheaper than the iPhone data plan. Dumbphone plans had cheap data add-ons in comparison, just take the SIM from the ultra-cheap phone they included in the plan and drop it in whatever unlocked GSM phone you wanted. It supported 3G before the iPhone even launched. You just had to get a 3G-enabled cheap dumbphone with your plan to ensure you got a 3G-activated SIM.

Obviously, they didn't market this so most consumers didn't know this was an option.

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

#495

Post by vel0city »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #381
riversflow wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, if apps choose to use those APIs you can still theoretically get a GPS fix. But tons of apps just use the Google Play Services APIs.

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

#496

Post by dathinab »

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 decision is indeed contrary to previous decisions about apple

Through we should consider that monopoly law wasn't created for monopolies specifically but for companies which can wide spread systematically abuse their marked power in a way which undermines any free marked dynamics and is detrimental for the state and/or population. Just when the term(s) where coined you needed to have at least a local monopoly for this in practice (or rarely duopoly). But with how IT changes the marked and how this allows artificial constraints and apps being written for specific platforms etc. this isn't true anymore and we really should stop using the term monopoly it's misleading.

Anyway if you take this spirit of the law and a (IMHO misguided) believe that Apple has abusable power but is not (much) abusing it (i.e. it's not detrimental) you could argue in favor of this decision.

---

IMHO closed platforms are detrimental per-se even if it's a duo, quad, or even bigger pole. I.e. your OS should be free anything else is just inviting detrimental market power abuse and often in subtile hard to properly list ways. To be clear while I thin you OS should be free (as in you are free to use it however you want ant it shouldn't have not legally required artificial limitations) it doesn't imply free hardware (as in you can use whatever OS you want). While the later is grate I'm not sure it's necessary.

Anyway what also needs to be considered are how it can be made artifical harder to freely use your OS. Like e.g. inventing a new term for installing (side loading) making a lot of PR about how dangerous it is, making it require additional steps etc. I.e. yes you should be able to install your app store of choice through the "default" app store with the default store having little say in the matter (outside of refusing fraudulent/illegal store operators, through not in a way where they can just declare someone as such and thats it).

Also as a side not the marked cap for a company operating in many fields isn't necessary relevant at all for deciding if it engages in market power abuse in some specific field.

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

#497

Post by dathinab »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #92
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.

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.

> If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right.

how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company?

it doesn't, right

the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.

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

#498

Post by fkyoureadthedoc »

mvdtnz wrote: post #354
hooli42 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the situation for desktop games right now, something Epic is profiting immensely from. It's an extremely annoying situation for users, having a dozen launcher/store apps around contributing to bloat.

> It's an extremely annoying situation for users Is it? I regularly use Steam, Epic and XBox and occasionally Ubi, Larian and whatever the GoG one is called... and it's fine. It's just another program.

Yeah, it is. I don't use anything except Steam. If it's not on Steam I'm not buying or playing it. Making your game exclusive to one distribution channel is stupid.

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

#499

Post by Phrodo_00 »

klez wrote: post #411
lern_too_spel wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> This has never been true for Android in general. This hasn't been true for phones that only ship with the Play Store since Android 12 I'm on Android 14 here, shipped with Play Store by default. It still auto-updates apps.

Exclusivity hasn't been true. eg F-droid can auto update apps.

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

#500

Post by Phrodo_00 »

xethos wrote: post #204
Phrodo_00 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google appears open yet is closed in practice How is Android closed in practice?

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…

Ah, this is true, but it's weird consider this issue (that I agree google might be overstepping in) in a lawsuit that doesn't involve an affected OEM.
Post reply on HN