Google must open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge • Hacker News Board

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

#531

Post by elevatedastalt » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:38 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #297

elevatedastalt wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What users wanted: One streaming service from where you can stream or rent any movie or show available in the world. What users got: 1000 streaming services each with their app and UX that is shitty in a slightly different way from the other, and with a catalog that keeps changing unpredictably.

users wants are company wants. one X is how you end up with a monopoly and an endgame where they enshittify the platform to cost as much as Cable back in the day. I'm a bit surprised a community as tech savvy as this has frustrations over the idea of using multiple platforms. decentralization by its nature means you'll have fragmentation of content. But it protects against the worse ending of Youtube price hiking mul…

The clusterfuck of the media universe is actually _because_ of monopoly. But it's not monopoly on UX, it is monopoly on the content.

If you want to watch the Lion King, Disney has your balls in a vice grip.

I would be perfectly fine with a hundred different UXes, if they could all serve me Lion King and I had an option to pay for it. Then it would be an actual decentralization. A syndicated system where I can access a movie or song on any platform (of my choice), and the copyright holder gets paid appropriately would be an approach most people in the tech savvy community would be happy with.

For all the noise journalists and the justice department make about big tech, there is basically ZERO action taken about the monopolization of IP that media houses indulge in.

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

#532

Post by dep_b » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:40 PM UTC

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…

A Flutter developer only sees the shitty parts of iOS and Android anyway. I imagine as a dumb carrier for Flutter Android is nicer.

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

#533

Post by elevatedastalt » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:40 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #264

elevatedastalt wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is there one result for Google and the opposite one for Apple?

follow the money. Which judges handled which cases in which location? but the non-partisan bailey answer is along the lines of "android promised freedom, IOS never did".

So it's better to be bad than to try to be good and fail?

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

#534

Post by talldayo » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:40 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #462

benoau wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple would probably just start charging gigantic fees for apps that meet certain criteria to replace some of the lost revenue or maybe even drive higher and more consistent revenue. If I recall correctly, that’s what they did in the European Union. I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but I know this is a contrarian view. Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-…

> Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming.

I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go?

On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone.

> In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps

Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave.

You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive.

> I know this is a contrarian view.

Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.

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

#535

Post by pdntspa » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:41 PM UTC

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.

Android is a hell of a lot closer to 'open' than iOS

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

#536

Post by r00fus » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:41 PM UTC

rblatz wrote: post #486

rickdeckard wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

What would I take with me? My photos and email will move just fine. The last app I bought was a while ago, and it was an app to block Google AMP. I’m honestly not sure I use any other paid apps.

Do you use MFA? How about meetings (zoom/teams)? What about MS Office or Google Apps? Is the new email client up to snuff? All of these are much better as apps.

Users do not want to browse the web on mobile for all their activities, when Apps are generally faster, more secure, and has all their prefs recorded EVEN if a webapp is functionally equivalent (and most are only 70-90% equivalent)

So the new entrant has to curry favor with all these large software vendors (some of whom are now competitors) and offer something for some key uses of a smartphone.

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

#537

Post by lolinder » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #530

lolinder wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I get the reasoning, I just think it's a terrible outcome. > "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience." (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist )

Nothing forced Google to compete in an anticompetitive manner. They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.

You know as well as I do that no company will ever do that. The result will be that there will be no new platforms that aren't either fully locked down or built by and for FOSS enthusiasts.

Heck, just look at WordPress for an example of what happens when a company tries to create a purely open platform and then still be a for-profit company. You can have open platforms maintained out of altruism or closed platforms maintained for profit. Android was a middle path that has now been shown to be illegal.

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

#538

Post by r00fus » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

jamestown44 wrote: post #516

rickdeckard wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no Apps. Also no iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Messages, Apple Pay, Apple Fitness, any kind of native Mac integration (Safari Bookmark sharing, Shared Bluetooth devices, clipboard sharing, Continuity Camera, AirPlay,...)? No Apple Wireless charger, Apple Watch, Airpods, Apple-specific Accessories, Apple App-based carkeys or Apple CarPlay? That's quite rare.

As an experiment I recently switched from iPhone (last 10 years?) to Android. It's been a little painful but: - nearly all apps support Android as well. The ones I used (navionics, banking apps, WhatsApp) you just log in on Android, no cost involved. - most Apple first party apps have a Google equivalent (google wallet, google keep notes, google messaging etc.) that is very similar - my AirPods work equally well with…

Fine - but that took Google billions and a decade of work to reach near-parity. A new entrant will not have any of that. Web apps can do much more than they could 10 or 15 years ago but still takes massive effort.

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

#539

Post by wiseowise » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

frizlab wrote: post #466

wiseowise wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no closed-ecosystem alternatives!! Any Android phone is closed-ecosystem if you don’t enable sideloading. > However there are thousands of alternatives to Apple. Nice! So you have plenty of choice if you don’t like where it goes with Apple. > It is don’t like don’t buy, as literally NO ONE NOR ANY SITUATION FORCES YOU TO BUY AN iPhone. You need a PHONE, not an iPhone. That’s correct, so there’s no issue w…

> if you don’t enable sideloading. My point exactly. I don’t want side loading to be possible . Now I do not have that option anymore.

Then you need to cure your OCD and don’t ruin experience for normal people.

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

#540

Post by idle_zealot » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:57 PM UTC

dns_snek wrote: post #452

idle_zealot wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that we will have proprietary software (distributed for free) doing bad things, and people blame their phone being slow. The solution to this remains the same as ever: curation of software packages. You can install any app you want, but you're probably going to use some front-end to manage that (Play Store, App Store). It's up to those platforms to curate what apps they host, and up to the user to de…

Why is this being downvoted? It doesn't break any guidelines, and it's obviously correct to boot. Curation is the status quo, the only thing that would change is that people could choose to trust another entity to curate their apps.

There is a contingent of Hacker News that strongly opposes the opening of iOS to third party app distribution, usually with the reasoning that doing so would prevent Apple from strong-arming third party developers into abiding by rules that benefit users (no notification spam, billing for subscriptions must be centrally managed, users must be able to opt out of tracking). If developers have other distribution options on the platform then, if they're successful enough, they'll be able to have their users install their misbehaved (but popular/necessary) app by some channel that Apple doesn't control. Comments where I support opening of the iOS platform are the most consistently downvoted of any that I make, though most do recover to a positive score eventually. There are exceptions, but that is the overall pattern I observe.