Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EelTeamNine t1_ix00ch9 wrote

To be fair... I do not want 30 different fucking app stores.

Split profits, don't care, but in what reality would this make for a better android experience?

74

mil24havoc t1_ix031zd wrote

The reality in which there's not a monopoly abusing it's monopoly status to prevent competitors?

28

EelTeamNine t1_ix05sit wrote

I don't see the issue still. It isn't negatively impacting consumers, in fact it benefits them imo. Epic, to my knowledge isn't being blocked from developing their own, Google just paid others to not.

The issue would come if they block Epic to make one, if they block downloads of apps from non play store sources, or if they block apps that compete with their own.

I'd love some more phone OS options, which is a slow time coming, but is a much more concerning monopoly than a company preserving the experience of their customers on their own products.

Edit: had Riot on my mind, fixed to Epic

−16

mil24havoc t1_ix07k95 wrote

This is something of a misunderstanding of how monopoly power is abused according to US law, at least. Monopolies aren't illegal. Using your power as a monopoly to maintain your monopoly is illegal. It simply doesn't matter if the other side (Epic, for example) accepts the payout to not open an app store. According to antitrust and monopoly laws, Epic isn't the victim, consumers are. You (the victim) prefer a single app store because it's all you know -- you haven't observed the counterfactual competitive app market and so are unlikely to be able to assess the impact it will have on your experience as a user. Historically, competitive markets have lead to lower prices and greater options for consumers. The alternative (that can also be good for consumers, in certain circumstances) is a single regulated monopoly. Think, for example, power companies. However, what we have now is an unregulated monopoly which exclusively benefits the monopoly holder.

Also, monopolies are market specific - so a market over OSes is different from a market within a given OS (e.g., an app store).

24

EelTeamNine t1_ix086iv wrote

Good breakdown.

I guess I'm not the affected party of this lawsuit either because I do not spend money on anything in the App store.

3

jazir5 t1_ix22a2j wrote

>Epic isn't the victim, consumers are. You (the victim) prefer a single app store because it's all you know -- you haven't observed the counterfactual competitive app market

This is a bad example in this specific instance IMO, because the Epic Games store on PC vs Steam is an extremely comparable situation. Most people very much so dislike Epic Games on PC and it's userbase is much smaller. Competition with Steam has produced absolutely no results, and the prices on Steam are often better than epics. Steam does not base their pricing vs epics, Valve has pretty much ignored Epic since they opened their store.

Now I don't know if the exact same would hold true on mobile, but I really don't see it playing out much differently.

That's not to say they shouldn't be given the chance though. If Epic wants to compete, let them.

2

mil24havoc t1_ix28che wrote

... Except that you don't know what the situation would be like if Epic wasn't able to open an app store -- because steam didn't prevent them from doing so. I get what you're saying, but the fact that steam has better deals than Epic is fairly weak evidence against a competitive market.

Furthermore, steam never had close to a monopoly like the phone app stores have. Steam has always competed with direct sales, publisher stores, brick and mortar, and the windows store, among others. The fact that one more store didn't make a huge difference isn't surprising because the market was already operating properly.

2

ukezi t1_ix2s6or wrote

I bet they will argue that the market is mobile phones and that there is Apple as alternative.

Just like that ISPs are not monopolies apparently even if they divided the markets into regions.

1

grby1812 t1_ix0rnj1 wrote

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...what do you think Google is paying $360m for? It isn't a payment on your behalf to make your life better.

5

xavis t1_ix0yf5p wrote

Are you trying to say google isn't my friend? Preposterous says I.

3

EcstaticFlounder24 t1_ix0bnw0 wrote

It will eventually happen, then it will be like streaming with certain apps only on certain platforms.

5

SnooSprouts4106 t1_ix1rzcz wrote

Better yet, every large software company will have their own apps store… just like for gaming… Origin, steam, etc… all with notification and geotracking of course :)

4

EelTeamNine t1_ix0buzl wrote

Good thing I use very few apps frequently. The rest I'll probably just drop off that happens.

1

camposdav t1_ix11fdg wrote

It’s like saying you only want one grocery chain store. They all sell the same items but at least it’s great to have options it makes them all set their prices competitively.

It’s all about options if you like the Google store that’s great but others might not feel the same sentiment you do. So options is always a good thing.

5

DotRom t1_ix1zzkw wrote

Also you don't have to install another appstore if you don't want them. EU forced Microsoft to give customer a browser choice screen, most people didn't pick an alternative until a competitive options came into market.

In my view the same will happen to App Stores.

1

MyVoiceIsElevating t1_ix0azsb wrote

Android users demand options!

Not sure what this “better experience” thing is?

2

EelTeamNine t1_ix0bcl2 wrote

I'd be happy if Google would stop altering my phone settings with every fucking update.

The bar is so damn low with smartphones.

2

nedrith t1_ix1afhl wrote

Choice. In reality, you'd likely have only one or 2 viable app stores. Most developers won't waste time with 5-10. Most people will choose 1, a small number of people will chose a second one possibly, and very few will use the others. However when Google Bans one app, that developer can go to another store. You might prefer app store #3's interface or they might be better at showing you the content you want to see. Same way a lot of people prefer 3rd party twitter apps for example.

The internet is wide open, yet we only have a few browsers that are really popular. Social media is a bit more diverse yet there are a few programs that are the big ones depending on what type of content you are trying to post.

2

vorxil t1_ix1dwme wrote

The solution to multiple stores is an open store standard.

Then you just pick an interface that interacts with all the stores.

In fact, you already have the foundation of one. It's called a web browser.

1

Positronic_Matrix t1_ix1p6gu wrote

> better android experience

It’s like fusion. Always on the horizon but never realized.

1

mrgnarchr t1_ix2b4vx wrote

What about a single UI but with user add-able repository and payment connectors.

Like a phone book 😅

1

garlicroastedpotato t1_ix0tjgh wrote

The problem with a monopoly is it leads to market dominance which results in degraded customer experience, degraded quality and potentially price increases. There's a few major monopolies that really exercise this point.

With Google Search they're basically the only player out there. Sites are actually programmed now so that only Google and Bing can crawl them (as in search through their content to optimize it for being searched). This prevents are competitors from coming in, but it also means that they're going to be free to cram in as many ads as they can and change the algorithms to focus on sales rather than what the user wants to find. The result is that Google Search is now worse today than it was 10 years ago.

Similarly you have Ticketmaster. It's owned by Live Nation who also own venues, venue rights, talent agencies that organize tours... and also the scalping website. Over the last 50 years Ticketmaster has effectively wiped out all possible competition and locked out competitors from acts that they host. The result of this is that the largest ticket seller in the world can't keep their website online when the largest music star wants to tour.

You don't want 30 app stores on your phone, tablet or computer. But you want THE OPTION. I have like 10 reward programs on my phone, I choose them.... because I use them. But when my local autodealer told me that I was REQUIRED to use their app to even use their service, I just told them sorry not interested.

Epic's lawsuit isn't about forcing you to download their store on your phone, it's about allowing you to have the choice. If you want to play their games on your phone, you can.

Edit: And you already are sort of starting to get a degraded experience on Android and Apple stores as they allow companies to pay them for top spots.

−1