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

51–60 of 607 posts

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

#51

Post by zamadatix »

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 can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.

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

#52

Post by gjsman-1000 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #34
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Apple's claim is simple: The monopoly was from the very beginning, when the iPhone had 0.0% market share. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would have failed. If developers didn't like it, the iPhone would have failed. Has Apple unfairly done anything new now that they have a monopoly? No. Did Apple raise their 30% royalty to 70% when they had a monopoly? No. Apple did not have a 30% cut for in-app purchases w…

> 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.

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

#53

Post by talldayo »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #46
jncfhnb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's claim is simple: The monopoly was from the very beginning, when the iPhone had 0.0% market share. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would have failed. If developers didn't like it, the iPhone would have failed. Has Apple unfairly done anything new now that they have a monopoly? No. Did Apple raise their 30% royalty to 70% when they had a monopoly? No. The problem is not a monopoly on hardware. The prob…

> The problem is gatekeeping access to software markets However, it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. This is easily demonstrable - customers would not have bought devices without apps, and vice versa. Very hard to show, in a court of law, that the terms which were once acceptable now magically aren't. The law isn't interested in people who say, "yes, it was a perfectly fine contra…

> it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it.

Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial.

Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development community as a whole. It certainly doesn't represent a competitive or regulated market of software comparable to the web, the Mac, Android or Windows.

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

#54

Post by gjsman-1000 »

talldayo wrote: post #53
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is gatekeeping access to software markets However, it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. This is easily demonstrable - customers would not have bought devices without apps, and vice versa. Very hard to show, in a court of law, that the terms which were once acceptable now magically aren't. The law isn't interested in people who say, "yes, it was a perfectly fine contra…

> it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial. Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development co…

The legal agreement, and the fact developers signed it, even if begrudgingly, back when iOS did not have a monopoly in any way, is the only assent the law needs to consider.

Student loans certainly don't have much assent 5 years after graduation.

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

#55

Post by talldayo »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #54
talldayo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial. Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development co…

The legal agreement, and the fact developers signed it, even if begrudgingly, back when iOS did not have a monopoly in any way, is the only assent the law needs to consider. Student loans certainly don't have much assent 5 years after graduation.

Not everyone has student loans. Non-signatory parties aren't beholden to other people's terms, and even then their agreement doesn't inherently prove the legality of a particular loan provider.

Apple's de-facto control of iPhone software can be illegally abusive without violating the terms of their developer agreements. If that wasn't true then I don't know why the FTC would be actively investigating them.

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

#56

Post by meiraleal »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #36
meiraleal wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Initially, there wasn't a requirement to ship Android with an app store That's exactly the same case for iphones, Steve Jobs initial plan (and execution) was to install apps from Safari, the prototype of PWAs.

True; except that the iPhone didn't allow apps from anywhere, at all. Consider damages, from a legal perspective. Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your proprietary 3D Printer? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for your dishwasher? Can you claim damages, because you can't write apps for an ecosystem which is, and was, always closed? No, no, and (currently) no. You absolutely ca…

As someone mentioned, the app store started without a 30% cut so they also baited and switched. The only difference is that Apple won the case because Justice works like that. Different judges and it would have lost too.

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

#57

Post by dnissley »

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.

Sure, but I would argue that Google's platform was open enough in that it was possible to download and install alternative app stores. They shouldn't need to do most of the things that are being requested here, like distribute play store apps in those alternate stores or change their requirements about what payment systems are used in apps downloaded through their app store. For the most part I think they should still be able to do what they want to do in their own app store, just like Apple.

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

#59

Post by georgeecollins »

clhodapp wrote: post #4

> and it must give rival third-party app stores access to the full catalog of Google Play apps That one feels a step too far to me. It seems like it should be the developer's job to share their app with third party stores, not Google's.

Google is the developer.

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

#60

Post by g-b-r »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #37
aaronax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the better F-Droid client is recommended to be installed via F-Droid? Seems complicated.

> the better F-Droid client How's it different? Neither link appeared to discuss this.

Droidify used to be much better because the official F-Droid client had a lot of problems, but now the latter is alright
Post reply on HN