11 ms·

When will the US do something against Google and Android? We at Appwrite are trying to build a decent alternative for Firebase push notifications, but in 2024 s

by eldadf 3y ago

When will the US do something against Google and Android? We at Appwrite are trying to build a decent alternative for Firebase push notifications, but in 2024 still forced to send our own customers to signup for our competitors service to be able to do it properly. I hope its just a question of time and not convenience.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
You assume the US can just sue however they want. In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company's). Which, on one hand, shows the relative impartiality of the court system. On the other hand, it means that just as much as a corporation would likely loose a lawsuit against a tech giant, the US government also fears that outcome. Also, unlike a civil matter, losing an antitrust case could be disastrous for the government. The Microsoft case, for example, was a technical victory, but a practical loss that put fear in the government to use antitrust action for almost 2 decades. From their perspective, it way too much work (5 years of litigation) for too little an outcome (yay, we've decoupled Internet Explorer and got a few concessions). And the main reason why, was because the judge squawked and broke ethics rules, which was awfully unpredictable and unpreventable.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  Not an issue of being as good or not, it’s resources - Apples are infinite, the DoJs are not.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I believe you have this backwards.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      The FTC anti-trust department has been pretty well gutted, so yes with Apple the DOJ is still facing an entity with relatively infinite resources.
      - Hasu 3y ago
        FTC antitrust is not part of the DOJ. The antitrust division of the DOJ only got $255m last year, not just to fight Apple, but to fight _all_ antitrust cases and run the division. Apple made $97b in profits last year, and reportedly had a legal budget in excess of $1b as of 2017. So yes, Apple's legal resources for this case are effectively infinite compared to the DOJ's.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        The U.S. can add funds to that department as needed and can exceed all of what Apple or any other company can spend on this.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    And politics. The general policy of the FTC from the 1980s until about 2020 was that mergers and market concentration are good for consumers and the economy as a whole. Just to take one example, Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked, but the DOJ under Obama, carrying on the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, decided not to pursue it.
    - SllX 3y ago
      > Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked On what grounds? Instagram was a small startup with about 30M users when Facebook proffered a deal. People legitimately thought they were overpaying at the time and while it was a hot app, it became the cultural phenomenon it is today under Facebook’s stewardship.
      - afavour 3y ago
        Probably an easier argument to sub out the acquisition of WhatsApp instead.
        SllX 3y ago
        WhatsApp had a much bigger user base but was still a small startup with about 50 employees and was losing money. The scummy thing was the role Onavo played in Facebook identifying it as an acquisition target, but that’s not the same as illegal. I think this is still a weak case.
wswope 3y ago
??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
willmadden 3y ago
Amazon too. These companies aren't just monopolies, they are groups of related monopolies.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...
passwordoops 3y ago
I'm guessing you're new here. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-against-google-historic-trial-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...
- joshstrange 3y ago
  Those are both about search and not about Android from what I can see.
jwells89 3y ago
Chrome needs to be addressed, too. It’s achieved near-monopoly status (especially if lumping in Chrome reskins like Edge) and posing meaningful competition to Google’s cross-promotion, marketing, and army of engineers working on the project is for practical purposes impossible. Prying away significant marketshare would be incredibly difficult even for the best non-Blink browser imaginable.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Edge is not a Chrome reskin, it's a Chromium reskin, and I think that distinction matters a lot here. The point of Chromium is that there is effectively no promotion or marketing in it. I think the fact that Microsoft push pop-ups to get users to move to Edge from Chrome is testament to that. Now from a technical perspective, more diversity in browser engine might be nice, but this doesn't really contribute to the competition discussion. (my opinions, not those of my employer)
  - jwells89 3y ago
    The distinction doesn’t matter that much in my mind, because Chromium reskins give Google just as much power over the web as Chrome reskins would. If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. Chromium/Blink being FOSS with Google also by far being the most dominant contributor essentially allows them to wield the same sort of power over the web that Microsoft once did, except this time it’s been whitewashed with an “open” gloss that helps keep the regulators off their backs.
    - kemayo 3y ago
      > If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. I think it'd make a bit of a difference, because Microsoft would now have the threat available of changing rendering engines and taking all their users with them (via Windows automatic updates). It'd be expensive and risky, so they wouldn't really want to do it, but they'd have it as leverage against any Google decisions.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This doesn't make any sense to me. It's definitely possible to send push notifications to Android apps without Firebase Cloud Messenger.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  Yes-and-no. Yes, you technically can - but your users will complain: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-notification-without-firebase https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-no...
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    The top comment on that SO post is: > It's definitely possible -- you don't have to use Firebase to deliver push notifications. You can roll out your own notification solution or consider a paid product such as Pushy (pushy.me) which does not rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging. Full disclosure - I am the Founder & CEO at Pushy. So clearly someone else has done it and built a business around it.
danpalmer 3y ago
Push notifications are a tricky one because they only really work when there's one central distribution point, for performance/battery/etc. Apple does it this way too, and almost every mobile platform does the same thing. Yes you can sit in the background and hold a connection open or poll on some platforms, but it's not a good experience. I see a thriving third-party ecosystem around push notifications as a marketing channel. Yes the low level APIs end up going via the central platform, but they are remarkably low level, and the business value comes from the automation, easier integration, tracking, rich notifications, etc. Companies like Urban Airship have been around for well over a decade doing this. Are these central platforms holding you back? If so I'm interested to know what you're unable to do that you would be able to do better. (This is all my own opinion, mostly from developing for iOS in a previous role, not that of my employer where I'm nothing to do with push)
- eldadf 3y ago
  All good, but why couple it with GCP? It used to be a separate, independent service (GCM) and how convenient it was to couple it with Firebase and call it FCM...

by eldadf 3y ago

gjsman-1000 3y ago

You assume the US can just sue however they want. In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company's). Which, on one hand, shows the relative impartiality of the court system. On the other hand, it means that just as much as a corporation would likely loose a lawsuit against a tech giant, the US government also fears that outcome. Also, unlike a civil matter, losing an antitrust case could be disastrous for the government. The Microsoft case, for example, was a technical victory, but a practical loss that put fear in the government to use antitrust action for almost 2 decades. From their perspective, it way too much work (5 years of litigation) for too little an outcome (yay, we've decoupled Internet Explorer and got a few concessions). And the main reason why, was because the judge squawked and broke ethics rules, which was awfully unpredictable and unpreventable.

bevekspldnw 3y ago
Not an issue of being as good or not, it’s resources - Apples are infinite, the DoJs are not.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  I believe you have this backwards.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    The FTC anti-trust department has been pretty well gutted, so yes with Apple the DOJ is still facing an entity with relatively infinite resources.
    - Hasu 3y ago
      FTC antitrust is not part of the DOJ. The antitrust division of the DOJ only got $255m last year, not just to fight Apple, but to fight _all_ antitrust cases and run the division. Apple made $97b in profits last year, and reportedly had a legal budget in excess of $1b as of 2017. So yes, Apple's legal resources for this case are effectively infinite compared to the DOJ's.
      - cryptonector 3y ago
        The U.S. can add funds to that department as needed and can exceed all of what Apple or any other company can spend on this.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  And politics. The general policy of the FTC from the 1980s until about 2020 was that mergers and market concentration are good for consumers and the economy as a whole. Just to take one example, Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked, but the DOJ under Obama, carrying on the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, decided not to pursue it.
  - SllX 3y ago
    > Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked On what grounds? Instagram was a small startup with about 30M users when Facebook proffered a deal. People legitimately thought they were overpaying at the time and while it was a hot app, it became the cultural phenomenon it is today under Facebook’s stewardship.
    - afavour 3y ago
      Probably an easier argument to sub out the acquisition of WhatsApp instead.
      - SllX 3y ago
        WhatsApp had a much bigger user base but was still a small startup with about 50 employees and was losing money. The scummy thing was the role Onavo played in Facebook identifying it as an acquisition target, but that’s not the same as illegal. I think this is still a weak case.

wswope 3y ago

??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

willmadden 3y ago

Amazon too. These companies aren't just monopolies, they are groups of related monopolies.

passwordoops 3y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...

passwordoops 3y ago

I'm guessing you're new here. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-against-google-historic-trial-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...

joshstrange 3y ago
Those are both about search and not about Android from what I can see.

jwells89 3y ago

Chrome needs to be addressed, too. It’s achieved near-monopoly status (especially if lumping in Chrome reskins like Edge) and posing meaningful competition to Google’s cross-promotion, marketing, and army of engineers working on the project is for practical purposes impossible. Prying away significant marketshare would be incredibly difficult even for the best non-Blink browser imaginable.

danpalmer 3y ago
Edge is not a Chrome reskin, it's a Chromium reskin, and I think that distinction matters a lot here. The point of Chromium is that there is effectively no promotion or marketing in it. I think the fact that Microsoft push pop-ups to get users to move to Edge from Chrome is testament to that. Now from a technical perspective, more diversity in browser engine might be nice, but this doesn't really contribute to the competition discussion. (my opinions, not those of my employer)
- jwells89 3y ago
  The distinction doesn’t matter that much in my mind, because Chromium reskins give Google just as much power over the web as Chrome reskins would. If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. Chromium/Blink being FOSS with Google also by far being the most dominant contributor essentially allows them to wield the same sort of power over the web that Microsoft once did, except this time it’s been whitewashed with an “open” gloss that helps keep the regulators off their backs.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    > If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. I think it'd make a bit of a difference, because Microsoft would now have the threat available of changing rendering engines and taking all their users with them (via Windows automatic updates). It'd be expensive and risky, so they wouldn't really want to do it, but they'd have it as leverage against any Google decisions.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

This doesn't make any sense to me. It's definitely possible to send push notifications to Android apps without Firebase Cloud Messenger.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
Yes-and-no. Yes, you technically can - but your users will complain: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-notification-without-firebase https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-no...
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The top comment on that SO post is: > It's definitely possible -- you don't have to use Firebase to deliver push notifications. You can roll out your own notification solution or consider a paid product such as Pushy (pushy.me) which does not rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging. Full disclosure - I am the Founder & CEO at Pushy. So clearly someone else has done it and built a business around it.

danpalmer 3y ago

Push notifications are a tricky one because they only really work when there's one central distribution point, for performance/battery/etc. Apple does it this way too, and almost every mobile platform does the same thing. Yes you can sit in the background and hold a connection open or poll on some platforms, but it's not a good experience. I see a thriving third-party ecosystem around push notifications as a marketing channel. Yes the low level APIs end up going via the central platform, but they are remarkably low level, and the business value comes from the automation, easier integration, tracking, rich notifications, etc. Companies like Urban Airship have been around for well over a decade doing this. Are these central platforms holding you back? If so I'm interested to know what you're unable to do that you would be able to do better. (This is all my own opinion, mostly from developing for iOS in a previous role, not that of my employer where I'm nothing to do with push)

eldadf 3y ago
All good, but why couple it with GCP? It used to be a separate, independent service (GCM) and how convenient it was to couple it with Firebase and call it FCM...