TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Google forced OnePlus to decimate a Fortnite launcher deal, claims Epic Games

177 点作者 theBashShell将近 5 年前

14 条评论

RonanTheGrey将近 5 年前
I don&#x27;t find it particularly interesting to argue over whether Google and&#x2F;or Apple or Goople are monopolies&#x2F;duopolies.<p>I think however it is obvious that something has seriously pathologically gone wrong in the mobile software market and these two companies are behind it.<p>I also don&#x27;t think that appeals to &quot;is that legal&quot; are all that satisfying -- (Apple&#x27;s free speech lets them silence whoever they wish, of course) -- but does that seem <i>right</i> to you?<p>For problems like these I tend to start at the end and work backwards. What would we want an ideal ecosystem to look like? And working backwards, what policies, laws, and cultural rules were made in order to get there? What products were built, and&#x2F;or sold, in order to build that outcome?<p>Then we do those things.<p>I watch these conversations again and again devolve into whether these companies are monopolies, but I think that discussion is beside the point. <i>Is it right?</i>. Why do I only have 2 choices? Why do I get to choose only between Global Hoover or Comical Evil? And why if I choose one of them, do I give up <i>all choices that follow</i>?<p>Solving problems like these relies on establishing a common ground about what we want to see, and agreeing that what we see isn&#x27;t that. So -- what do we see wrong now, and what would we fix?
评论 #24153287 未加载
评论 #24155505 未加载
评论 #24154880 未加载
ocdtrekkie将近 5 年前
I think in the last thread a bunch of people were adamant Google wasn&#x27;t a monopolist because plenty of phones shipped with app stores outside of Play. Seems like Google picks and chooses which of those are okay.<p>It&#x27;s time to stop lying: Google will absolutely abandon every single rule in the book to ensure they get 30% of Fortnite purchases. It&#x27;s too lucrative, and Google is too greedy.<p>This has nothing to do with safety or security. It has nothing to do with playing fair and following their terms. It&#x27;s about the money.
评论 #24152930 未加载
评论 #24152853 未加载
评论 #24153145 未加载
评论 #24153434 未加载
评论 #24153454 未加载
评论 #24152893 未加载
heavyset_go将近 5 年前
Reminds me of how Microsoft would make deals with OEMs to only sell PCs with Windows on them, and how that, among other things, was used against them in their antitrust suit 20 years ago.
评论 #24152649 未加载
gok将近 5 年前
&quot;Google prohibitions on bloatware hurt bloatware deal, claims bloatware vendor&quot;
评论 #24152971 未加载
评论 #24152636 未加载
评论 #24152681 未加载
评论 #24152890 未加载
dafty4将近 5 年前
Interesting that AT&amp;T and Samsung can collude to pre-install AT&amp;T <i>and</i> Samsung bloat on my Galaxy S7 Edge Android device, but Fortnite couldn&#x27;t collude with OnePlus to pre-install bloat?<p>(Yes, I see that the carrier and the #1 Android phone seller are involved in one case and not the other, so the Samsung bloat is the more interesting case. If OnePlus were to write its own bloat-ware or acquire&#x2F;merge-with Epic, would they be allowed to pre-install?)
评论 #24153485 未加载
neil_s将近 5 年前
This headline seems sensationalist to me. Google simply enforced its Android&#x2F;Play Store Terms of Service, which have restrictions on apps being able to sideload other apps on devices that also have the Play Store. This is because if one of those other apps is infected, users don&#x27;t know whether it came through the sideloaded apps or Play Store (which is supposed to virus scan all apps). You can argue all day about whether Google should be allowed to charge 30% of revenue for providing the value of the Play Store and Android, but seems pretty straightforward that if you sign the ToS, then sign a conflicting deal with an OEM, Google saying that that won&#x27;t work is not exactly &quot;forc[ing]...to decimate a deal&quot;.
zemo将近 5 年前
why aren&#x27;t they like, suing sony for not letting you sideload games on playstation or nintendo for not letting you sideload games on the switch
评论 #24153394 未加载
评论 #24153363 未加载
评论 #24153390 未加载
revel将近 5 年前
That&#x27;s some aggressive rent seeking right there.
partingshots将近 5 年前
It’s kind of funny how negative&#x2F;angry people are in the comments section right now, when the similarly ongoing discussion currently happening with Apple[0] has such a large set of apologists and adamant defenders. Cognitive dissonance much?<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24146987" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24146987</a>
评论 #24153668 未加载
selectodude将近 5 年前
I know that decimate is a colloquialism nowadays but I feel like a publication should know better. Unless Google asked for ten percent of the proceeds or something, as a headline it makes absolutely no sense.
评论 #24153061 未加载
评论 #24152533 未加载
评论 #24153022 未加载
评论 #24153040 未加载
评论 #24152840 未加载
评论 #24154764 未加载
joemazerino将近 5 年前
Why hasn&#x27;t a business approached F-Droid or other App stores to bridge a gap between Play and Android?
评论 #24153242 未加载
jojobas将近 5 年前
Hardware&#x2F;OS vendors should not be allowed to include app stores out of the box, much less prevent sideloading.<p>We&#x27;d be nowhere near where we are today if PCs couldn&#x27;t run Linux, and earlier PCs couldn&#x27;t run whatever you wanted from a floppy.<p>The fact that consumers are lazy and stores are easy shouldn&#x27;t prevent decisions beneficial to everyone.
评论 #24153648 未加载
评论 #24152866 未加载
评论 #24154696 未加载
stevespang将近 5 年前
Oh my, now Fortnite&#x27;s lawyers can add conspiracy and racketeering to their lawsuits, how juicy.
scarface74将近 5 年前
But Andy Rubin told us....<p><pre><code> the definition of open: &quot;mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git:&#x2F;&#x2F;android.git.kernel.org&#x2F;platform&#x2F;manifest.git ; repo sync ; make&quot;</code></pre>
评论 #24152881 未加载