Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#61

Post by mmcconnell1618 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

woofie11 wrote: post #25

mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.

The law is interpreted according to different standards over time. NPR has a really interesting 3 part podcast series that explains how antitrust laws have been applied over time. Marketshare was the significant metric at one time but more recent judges have used impact/harm to consumers based on price. Under recent case law, if the consumer is still able to get the good cheaply, you can basically own the entire market.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/anti...

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#62

Post by gunapologist99 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

woofie11 wrote: post #25

mard wrote: post #18

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.

> Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly.

They effectively have a monopoly over their customers from other customers and can leverage that monopoly to control their vendors.

And Google and Apple secretly working together as "one company" literally defines trust behavior:

'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#63

Post by lucasverra » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

That is why we need trustless / censorship resistant platforms like “regular” web or the yet to be proven web 3 (led by ethereum)

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#64

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#65

Post by tyingq » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

dividedbyzero wrote: post #54

Xelbair wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so if this restriction was gone, it would make everything more sane for customer, while finally dealing with chromium monopoly. sounds like a win-win to me.

How would a chromium monopoly be a win (for anyone but Google)?

I think the poster was thinking it would make Google a clear monopoly, making an anti-trust case easier to pursue.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#66

Post by luckylion » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

sulam wrote: post #19

samhw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't think that's going far enough. That "our vision is that we work as if we are one company" line couldn't be a better basis for an antitrust case if they were literally trying to incriminate themselves.

That line, bereft of context, is being used as if the two companies don’t compete in many many markets. Do you really think that the original context was as broad as the entire company’s operations? Or even the respective phone ecosystems? They clearly compete with each other heavily.

Maybe they aren't competing, but merely simulate competition in many markets. Why isn't the app-store-tax getting lower through heavy competition?

In many cases, it looks like there's some mutual competition-simulation going. Google launches Google+ to pretend Facebook isn't the only social network, Microsoft launches Bing so Google can say "we don't have a monopoly on search", Google finances Firefox to say the same about browsers, Apple creates Apple Maps to pretend Google Maps has competition etc, but they always seem to put in no more than the minimum effort required.

Of course, they could be honestly trying to compete and they just suck at doing those things their competitors do really well. It just looks suspicious, and quotes like that add weight to that impression.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#67

Post by Forge36 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#68

Post by adventured » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as…

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

> This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Even more so when you consider how much larger these companies are set to get yet (Google will double in size again within ~5-7 years). It's the Microsoft case if Microsoft had been allowed to continue to build its power out for another 10-15 years unchecked. In the 1990s a parade of magazines ran stories about how Microsoft wanted to set up a toll road on the Internet, to position itself to take a bite out of all ecommerce. They were of course meant to be scare stories to garner attention as Microsoft wasn't close to accomplishing something like that at that point.

And yet, here we are two decades later, Apple and Google control two big Internet toll roads and are drastically larger and more powerful than Microsoft was in the 1990s. IBM was seven times larger than Microsoft in 1997. Microsoft of the 1990s looks downright quaint by comparison, an emerging big tech company playing at being giant (back then there were still far larger and more powerful corporations); today, Apple and Google - big tech broadly - are the most powerful and largest companies. Caterpillar, GE, 3M, General Dynamics, GM, Ford, Honeywell, etc look like sad jokes standing next to Apple or Google.

Google for its part has three monopolies which have amazingly been left entirely alone: search, YouTube, Android. They must have signed one helluva protection deal with the intelligence apparatus back when PRISM was getting set up, they got a ten year get out of jail free card (it's in the interests of the intelligence community to have these giant intel-hoovering companies that sprawl and span the globe).

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#69

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #59

shagie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If apple prevented its licensees for the iPhone to bundle Safari rather than another browser... then this would be more applicable. However, Apple isn't extending its dominance in the smart phone area (Apple has 53% market share of mobile devices, Microsoft had above 90% market share for intel compatible PCs https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... ) to its licensees for iOS. Apple not forcing…

Just because they make both iOS and the iPhone doesn't mean they get a pass to be anticompetitive on their platform.

They can be anticompetitive on their platform as long as their platform doesn’t have a lock on the market. So say, if you didn’t need to buy an iPhone and could buy an android instead, and if that actually happened in practice, Apple could reasonably argue they didn’t have a monopoly on the market even if they had a monopoly in their own platform.

Re: Google’s ‘Project Hug’ paid out huge sums to keep game devs in the Play Store

#70

Post by withinboredom » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #64

NorwegianDude wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.

wut