7 ms·

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignor

The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phone OSes get a cut of everything on their platform is already an insane racket.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Not just a cut but 30%.
- SonnyWortzik 8y ago
  That's up there with federal income tax.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    Companies pay taxes on profits, not on revenue. Google takes 30% cut of the revenue. That's quite a difference.
    - SonnyWortzik 8y ago
      sure, as a private company I have a running budget based on the profits of my application. 30% of that revenue which I will never get will be going to another company which has a record of paying little to no taxes. Now, how do you think the government makes up the difference in the tax loop holes? By raising taxes on companies like mine and restricting/regulating on how I structure my profits/income so that it can stay in business. So indirectly 30% off the revenue is affecting my tax situation with the federal government. Again, 30% is on par with federal income tax.
      - dbt00 8y ago
        I think the comment was saying that it's way worse than income tax. I don't think you're disagreeing.
        vetinari 8y ago
        Exactly; it's at least one order of magnitude worse than the income tax.
        SonnyWortzik 8y ago
        agree. I read your comment defensively. my fault. I was trying to imply that Google is acting like some government entity taxing your income.
rc_bhg 8y ago
Good job TechCrunch.
ma2rten 8y ago
Is that actually the frameing of the article or just the headline? I feel like they just choose a borderline clickbait headline. Maybe they even wrote that headline after the fact.
minimaxir 8y ago
> It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. Like Snapchat, this may be a case where deliberately counterintuitive behavior may actually help, since sideloading will now become "cool" for the teenagers/millennials it targets.
- gaius 8y ago
  will now become "cool" If it does and becomes the «new normal» then that could cost Google alot more...
- solarkraft 8y ago
  It will probably introduce some people to die loading and, by disabling the prevention, maybe enable some malware APKs to be accidentally installed. Not that much interesting software is available from outside the Play Store. Only OGYoutube comes to my mind here.
628C6l0 8y ago
That's just the art of writing headlines. How else do they generate online conversation except by stating it in a obviously flawed way provoking people like you to point out the flaw and people with a penchant for "charity" to come to their defense, and so on and so forth? Why are we still falling for this crap?
- solarkraft 8y ago
  I have never thought about it like this. Thanks and please keep pointing it out!
- uvatbc 8y ago
  > Why are we still falling for this crap? We fall for this because a subset of us has been provoked to point out the obvious flaw in the headline or the summary and another subset has been provoked into defending the part that isn't flawed. I alternated between feeling like this was a question worth answering and feeling like a dick for answering this with your own words.
  - 628C6l0 8y ago
    I mean, it was a rhetorical question, which by definition is a question asked not to elicit an answer but to make a point.
scarface74 8y ago
How is this any more or less insane than every console maker getting a cut of every game distributed either physically or digitally? For you to sell a physical game disk, you still have to have a cryptographic signature issued by the console maker.
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  Because consoles are proprietary closed source boxen and android isn't?
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Everything that makes Android, Android to most Western consumers is closed source - the play store, Google Maps, Youtube, the dialer, Chrome, etc. Google has abandoned more and more of the open source parts of AOSP with closed source alternatives over the years. That’s not to mention all of the drivers that are proprietary....
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      But it is pretty interesting how easy it has always been to bypass the Play Store. It's user friendly, yes, and I like it, but it essentially enables Epic Games' workaround. Google could have easily added way more (still acceptable for most users) friction into the process in the first place. Maybe having the switch in the developer settings, maybe having to enable it over ADB. That'd surely have made Epic Games think harder about this move.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        The original statement was.... Because consoles are proprietary closed source boxen and android isn't The fact that you can install software outside of the app store no more makes the version of Android that most people run "open source" than it does Windows or MacOS.
- izacus 8y ago
Benjammer 8y ago
>the fact that phone OSes get a cut That's how a platform business _works_ though. I mean we could discuss reasonable limits or something or how a platform effects competition once it's entrenched, but you're basically just saying "The concept of a platform business is an insane racket." Do you think building a global software distribution platform is easy? Let alone the value of compounding network effects.
- philipov 8y ago
  The concept of a platform business is an insane racket.
  - sushid 8y ago
    How about physical stores and selling items in retail space? Companies pay money to get shelf space and special promotional displays in CPG all the time.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Google and Apple have created and invested in their platforms - it’s not insane for them to make profit from them.
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      They've created an artificial need for the platforms by closing their systems. Open systems don't require these kinds of platforms. I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        > I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way. Good for you, but many other people appreciate the curated platforms that Google and Apple have built and like it that way instead. They're not 'insane' for liking it a different way to you - there's benefits of both approaches.
      - 8y ago
izacus 8y ago
In a few years the media (which has always been very pro-Apple) has internalized the idea, that all your software MUST come from a single corporation controlled walled garden and pay tax to them. The whole concept of being able to install software from a source you choose is now so foreign that they'll speak against it when possible. And unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a lot of HN commenters as well.
- dbt00 8y ago
  I've been running open source, free, libre, etc software since the mid-90s. My firewall is openbsd. my laptop runs linux. I use emacs for most of my software editing. I want you to understand that I am a big open source weenie, and have been for decades. I think asking consumers to evaluate risk of installing third party apps and manage permissions is insane. My phone runs iOS. My family the same. The volume of malware in the Play Store alone, much less in the sideloading community is mind boggling. If I ran Android I would only install software that I had written myself or come from a trusted vendor, and only use a browser (probably not Chrome even, but Firefox) for any third party content. Any anti-walled-garden screed has to grapple with the fact that in the real world, the walled garden protects people from mass data theft and infiltration. Windows used to be like this, before many more users switched to Mac (which is harder, but not impossible) to backdoor. Replicating the internet security environment of the late 90s but on our phones would be a disaster for the technology-using world.
  - archagon 8y ago
    Gatekeeper on macOS is a great compromise. I wish iOS would adopt the same model.
  - adrianmalacoda 8y ago
    There's something to be said for having a known good source of software that you can trust. GNU/Linux of course follows the same model, where you're expected to get the majority of your software from the distro repository. So, I don't think this model is inherently antithetical to free software. I'm a free software nerd and I run LineageOS-sans-Google on my mobile device. I get the vast majority of my software through F-Droid, which works like a GNU/Linux distribution - they build all packages from source and sign with their own key. Only time I would sideload a package is if it's not available in F-Droid (because it's proprietary - although I've since found out about Yalp and use that instead) or if I'm building it myself. It works well enough for me. I think the objectionable part of a walled garden, at least to a free software nerd, is the walled part. I appreciate the option of being able to step outside if I feel I need to.
lukewrites 8y ago
It is misleading. It would be more honest (imho) to describe Google as "missing out on" rather than "losing". I don't think you can "lose" that which you never had.
xg15 8y ago
I'd say the framing is right, because it highlights why this is news: The Play Store is way more than a service for Google - it's one of the primary ways they keep control over the Android ecosystem. To my knowledge, this is the first time, someone uses the side-loading loophole on a commercial scale. It should be interesting to observe Google's reaction to that.
trumped 8y ago
> A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. > I mean, the fact that phone OSes get a cut of everything on their platform is already an insane racket. isn't it Google's decision to charge insane amounts for apps that they didn't create?

oh_sigh 8y ago

Not just a cut but 30%.

SonnyWortzik 8y ago
That's up there with federal income tax.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Companies pay taxes on profits, not on revenue. Google takes 30% cut of the revenue. That's quite a difference.
  - SonnyWortzik 8y ago
    sure, as a private company I have a running budget based on the profits of my application. 30% of that revenue which I will never get will be going to another company which has a record of paying little to no taxes. Now, how do you think the government makes up the difference in the tax loop holes? By raising taxes on companies like mine and restricting/regulating on how I structure my profits/income so that it can stay in business. So indirectly 30% off the revenue is affecting my tax situation with the federal government. Again, 30% is on par with federal income tax.
    - dbt00 8y ago
      I think the comment was saying that it's way worse than income tax. I don't think you're disagreeing.
      - vetinari 8y ago
        Exactly; it's at least one order of magnitude worse than the income tax.
        SonnyWortzik 8y ago
        agree. I read your comment defensively. my fault. I was trying to imply that Google is acting like some government entity taxing your income.

rc_bhg 8y ago

Good job TechCrunch.

ma2rten 8y ago

Is that actually the frameing of the article or just the headline? I feel like they just choose a borderline clickbait headline. Maybe they even wrote that headline after the fact.

minimaxir 8y ago

> It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. Like Snapchat, this may be a case where deliberately counterintuitive behavior may actually help, since sideloading will now become "cool" for the teenagers/millennials it targets.

gaius 8y ago
will now become "cool" If it does and becomes the «new normal» then that could cost Google alot more...
solarkraft 8y ago
It will probably introduce some people to die loading and, by disabling the prevention, maybe enable some malware APKs to be accidentally installed. Not that much interesting software is available from outside the Play Store. Only OGYoutube comes to my mind here.

628C6l0 8y ago

That's just the art of writing headlines. How else do they generate online conversation except by stating it in a obviously flawed way provoking people like you to point out the flaw and people with a penchant for "charity" to come to their defense, and so on and so forth? Why are we still falling for this crap?

solarkraft 8y ago
I have never thought about it like this. Thanks and please keep pointing it out!
uvatbc 8y ago
> Why are we still falling for this crap? We fall for this because a subset of us has been provoked to point out the obvious flaw in the headline or the summary and another subset has been provoked into defending the part that isn't flawed. I alternated between feeling like this was a question worth answering and feeling like a dick for answering this with your own words.
- 628C6l0 8y ago
  I mean, it was a rhetorical question, which by definition is a question asked not to elicit an answer but to make a point.

scarface74 8y ago

How is this any more or less insane than every console maker getting a cut of every game distributed either physically or digitally? For you to sell a physical game disk, you still have to have a cryptographic signature issued by the console maker.

arminiusreturns 8y ago
Because consoles are proprietary closed source boxen and android isn't?
- scarface74 8y ago
  Everything that makes Android, Android to most Western consumers is closed source - the play store, Google Maps, Youtube, the dialer, Chrome, etc. Google has abandoned more and more of the open source parts of AOSP with closed source alternatives over the years. That’s not to mention all of the drivers that are proprietary....
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    But it is pretty interesting how easy it has always been to bypass the Play Store. It's user friendly, yes, and I like it, but it essentially enables Epic Games' workaround. Google could have easily added way more (still acceptable for most users) friction into the process in the first place. Maybe having the switch in the developer settings, maybe having to enable it over ADB. That'd surely have made Epic Games think harder about this move.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The original statement was.... Because consoles are proprietary closed source boxen and android isn't The fact that you can install software outside of the app store no more makes the version of Android that most people run "open source" than it does Windows or MacOS.
izacus 8y ago

Benjammer 8y ago

>the fact that phone OSes get a cut That's how a platform business _works_ though. I mean we could discuss reasonable limits or something or how a platform effects competition once it's entrenched, but you're basically just saying "The concept of a platform business is an insane racket." Do you think building a global software distribution platform is easy? Let alone the value of compounding network effects.

philipov 8y ago
The concept of a platform business is an insane racket.
- sushid 8y ago
  How about physical stores and selling items in retail space? Companies pay money to get shelf space and special promotional displays in CPG all the time.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Google and Apple have created and invested in their platforms - it’s not insane for them to make profit from them.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    They've created an artificial need for the platforms by closing their systems. Open systems don't require these kinds of platforms. I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way. Good for you, but many other people appreciate the curated platforms that Google and Apple have built and like it that way instead. They're not 'insane' for liking it a different way to you - there's benefits of both approaches.
    - 8y ago

izacus 8y ago

In a few years the media (which has always been very pro-Apple) has internalized the idea, that all your software MUST come from a single corporation controlled walled garden and pay tax to them. The whole concept of being able to install software from a source you choose is now so foreign that they'll speak against it when possible. And unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a lot of HN commenters as well.

dbt00 8y ago
I've been running open source, free, libre, etc software since the mid-90s. My firewall is openbsd. my laptop runs linux. I use emacs for most of my software editing. I want you to understand that I am a big open source weenie, and have been for decades. I think asking consumers to evaluate risk of installing third party apps and manage permissions is insane. My phone runs iOS. My family the same. The volume of malware in the Play Store alone, much less in the sideloading community is mind boggling. If I ran Android I would only install software that I had written myself or come from a trusted vendor, and only use a browser (probably not Chrome even, but Firefox) for any third party content. Any anti-walled-garden screed has to grapple with the fact that in the real world, the walled garden protects people from mass data theft and infiltration. Windows used to be like this, before many more users switched to Mac (which is harder, but not impossible) to backdoor. Replicating the internet security environment of the late 90s but on our phones would be a disaster for the technology-using world.
- archagon 8y ago
  Gatekeeper on macOS is a great compromise. I wish iOS would adopt the same model.
- adrianmalacoda 8y ago
  There's something to be said for having a known good source of software that you can trust. GNU/Linux of course follows the same model, where you're expected to get the majority of your software from the distro repository. So, I don't think this model is inherently antithetical to free software. I'm a free software nerd and I run LineageOS-sans-Google on my mobile device. I get the vast majority of my software through F-Droid, which works like a GNU/Linux distribution - they build all packages from source and sign with their own key. Only time I would sideload a package is if it's not available in F-Droid (because it's proprietary - although I've since found out about Yalp and use that instead) or if I'm building it myself. It works well enough for me. I think the objectionable part of a walled garden, at least to a free software nerd, is the walled part. I appreciate the option of being able to step outside if I feel I need to.

lukewrites 8y ago

It is misleading. It would be more honest (imho) to describe Google as "missing out on" rather than "losing". I don't think you can "lose" that which you never had.

xg15 8y ago

I'd say the framing is right, because it highlights why this is news: The Play Store is way more than a service for Google - it's one of the primary ways they keep control over the Android ecosystem. To my knowledge, this is the first time, someone uses the side-loading loophole on a commercial scale. It should be interesting to observe Google's reaction to that.

trumped 8y ago

> A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. > I mean, the fact that phone OSes get a cut of everything on their platform is already an insane racket. isn't it Google's decision to charge insane amounts for apps that they didn't create?