[HN Gopher] Google "bought off Samsung" to limit app store compe...
___________________________________________________________________
Google "bought off Samsung" to limit app store competition, 36
states allege
Author : nabla9
Score : 204 points
Date : 2021-07-09 09:59 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| rob74 wrote:
| > _[...] which Samsung did in 2018 when it partnered with Epic to
| launch Fortnite exclusively on the Galaxy Store. [...] Samsung
| apparently pursued other exclusives with "popular" app developers
| [...]_
|
| So an alternative app store provided by the largest maker of
| Android phones, which pursues exclusive apps that will then only
| be available for Samsung phones, is supposed to be _good_ for
| competition?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Careful taking lawsuit claims seriously. Especially then the
| claim drops from doing X to "attempting X" by paragraph 2 and by
| paragraph 6 is just being "willing" to attempt X.
| elliekelly wrote:
| All of the phrasing you take issue with is directly from the
| linked complaint. The complaint flatly alleges Google "bought
| off Samsung" (as quoted in the headline) and that Google was
| both willing to attempt to buy off Samsung and did indeed
| attempt to do so. They are the logical order of events, no? I
| can't have bought someone off without first having attempted to
| buy them off and before _that_ having been willing to buy them
| off.
| [deleted]
| GavinMcG wrote:
| The point I think OP was making is that you can say anything
| with a reasonable evidentiary basis in a complaint. (And some
| lawyers don't bother with the evidentiary basis part--see the
| post-election lawsuits that are being sanctioned for just
| that.)
|
| It's not about whether the language is in the article or the
| legal document; the legal document itself is merely a lawyer
| saying something that is in their client's interest.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| The actual complaint is linked in the article if you don't like
| Are Technica's writing.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I'm just saying, title doesn't match content doesn't match
| actual complaint...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It might be better if you contact Ars Technica's editors
| instead of sound off about it on HN.
| gruez wrote:
| What type of response is this? "if there are any
| inaccuracies send them to the editor rather than make a
| comment"? Adding a comment to inform other readers seems
| like the correct thing to do and happens fairly often on
| other comment sections.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| You think they're more likely to listen given I've
| already been flagged by HN circle jerk?
| post_break wrote:
| If true it makes their smart watch joint venture interesting. Did
| google force samsung to stop using tizen on their smart watches?
| Pay them a large sum of money to get wearOS back in the game?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Most of Samsung's seemingly odd back and forth antics can be
| explained by realizing that:
|
| Samsung is the manufacturer most capable of forking Android and
| telling Google to shove it, and that most of their product
| development has been making sure that it's possible to do so
| (Galaxy Store, Bixby, Tizen watches, etc.)
|
| And that Google, knowing Samsung has the brand loyalty and wide
| userbase to devastate Android's market share, is in a constant
| effort to pay Samsung to stop pushing them away.
|
| So they built competitors to Google's product library, and then
| Google pays them to push a Google product anyways, and then
| they build a competitor to the next Google product, and wait
| for the check from Google for them to shelve it... Through this
| back and forth, Samsung both ends up with a competitive
| ecosystem to Google ready-to-go if they need it, and an
| extremely lucrative pile of concessions from Google that Google
| would've preferred to not have to give them.
| bythckr wrote:
| I feel that the software products & services that Samsung
| builds is half-baked. It might be a pressure tactic to ensure
| Google keeps paying.
|
| Also, I am wonder what happened of Samsung & Microsoft plans
| of Samsung shelving its app & services for Microsoft. I feel
| that was the "real motivation" for Google to start paying.
|
| Google needs to be challenged for an improvement in Android
| space. They should stop rushing in half baked stuff and
| instead work on releasing reliable & well tested products.
|
| As a person that actively used android, iOS, Linux, Windows &
| Mac, Apple's stuffs just work and it's high time the
| competition catches up.
|
| As for Android, we need to have flavour / custom ROMs that is
| 100% degoogled and with proper alternatives. Ubuntu,
| Microsoft & LinageOS all need to up their game and get more
| people involved.
| selestify wrote:
| As another person who's used all of those OS's as well,
| Apple's stuff sadly does not "just work" anymore for me,
| but it does still work better than other ones
| LegitShady wrote:
| apple has an order of magnitude fewer device models to
| support. I'm not sure android will ever have similar
| performance and feature support as apple - the business
| models are so totally different.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| 38 states is enough for a constitutional amendment. Makes you
| wonder.
| tinalumfoil wrote:
| It's a much higher bar to ratify a constitutional amendment
| than to sue Google.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Agreed. Mainly I think it's interesting that we can get that
| many states to come together on anything. Generally the
| red/blue divide is very strong.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| States agree on many things. You can see some of them with
| these kinds of search queries.
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%22all+50+states+agree%22
|
| They wouldn't have nearly as much agreement if each was
| presented as a constitutional amendment, of course.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| And then there would be other actual Constitutional issues to
| deal with, too:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitution.
| ..
| mullingitover wrote:
| If you manage to herd all the necessary cats and actually
| amend the Constitution, you don't have to worry about
| conflicts - that's the whole point of doing an amendment,
| you're changing the Constitution. Only laws can conflict
| with the Constitution.
| [deleted]
| deregulateMed wrote:
| After my S5, an SSD, and a Samsung TV, I've learned that Samsung
| delivers medium/low quality products at high prices through
| relentless marketing.
|
| Any company that needs to advertise as much as
| Samsung/Apple/Jeep/Nintendo should be cause for skepticism.
| whitepaint wrote:
| I got my Samsung phone recently for ~$200 and it is absolutely
| amazing. I've had 4 by now from them, and they've all be great
| imo.
|
| Which companies produce better phones?
| nodejs_rulez_1 wrote:
| Any company that does major OS updates more than twice?
| Apple? Then again, Samsung doesn't try to deliberately slow
| my phone down or drain the battery. So no company I guess.
| Everyone is churning out pretty-looking garbage.
| slownews45 wrote:
| Because it helps the customer everyone has copied Apple on
| battery management. If you don't like it turn it off and
| just let your phone die.
| foobiekr wrote:
| Samsung absolutely does battery drain management. Every
| single vendor does.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Nintendo might not release cutting edge hardware, but they're
| pretty much the only big video game company left that doesn't
| openly release half finished games with the intention to maybe
| fix them a few months later.
| asddubs wrote:
| they also seem to be the least guilty of adding
| microtransactions to everything. Although I haven't kept up
| with nintendo devices, so I'm not sure if this is still as
| true on the switch.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| This stopped being true with the Switch.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Gonna need sources on that claim
| mcphage wrote:
| Super Mario Party was not up to their content standards--
| the minigames were good, but there were only 4 boards,
| and they were both tiny and dull. Animal Crossing is a
| mixed bag--it has stuff previous entries don't, and is
| missing a lot that previous entries contained. But that
| might have gotten derailed due to Covid. The Mario Golf
| game that just came out supposedly has minimal content
| too, but I haven't played it.
|
| On the other hand, it's not universal--New Pokemon Snap
| is a sequel to a game that could be completed in ~5
| hours, and is absolutely filled with content.
| vimacs2 wrote:
| . . . That's not what people mean when they say "half
| finished". It's when a game with a defined scope fails to
| meet that scope. You might not like the dearth of content
| with those titles but there is no indication that they
| were ever meant to go beyond what was provided on
| release.
| mcphage wrote:
| I certainly can't speak to what their defined scope was--
| generally Nintendo doesn't specify, and when they do say
| something--like saying Animal Crossing was designed to
| have "two or three years worth of content"--there's no
| indication what that actually _means_. All I can speak to
| is, when playing a game, does this game feel complete and
| finished? Traditionally Nintendo has been pretty good
| about that. Recently, not so much. I 've been playing
| Mario Party since the late 90s, you develop a feel for
| what Nintendo considers a complete release. Whether
| that's changed _intentionally_ not, is pretty immaterial.
| tremon wrote:
| Samsung SSD prices are in line with other vendors. The Galaxy
| Note II was a very high-quality smartphone. Can't say anything
| about Samsung TVs, never owned one.
| tyleo wrote:
| You lost me at Samsung/Apple/Jeep/Nintendo. I'd definitely put
| Apple in the top tier of phone and laptop quality. Especially
| w.r.t laptops, the majority of Windows devices seem
| comparatively low quality. I'm not sure about their other
| products but I also don't see them advertised as much.
|
| Similarly with Nintendo, they seem to deliver consistently
| higher quality than competitors. They may not be as fast but
| they last for years and deliver equal or more enjoyment at a
| lower price point.
|
| A product is more than it's specs.
| Fnoord wrote:
| > I'd definitely put Apple in the top tier of phone and
| laptop quality. Especially w.r.t laptops, the majority of
| Windows devices seem comparatively low quality. I'm not sure
| about their other products but I also don't see them
| advertised as much.
|
| Every MBP/MBA/MB had design flaws. From butterfly keyboard to
| discrete GPU, only 1 port (USB-C, for battery), etc. They
| fixed the keyboard problem finally, but from 2016-2019 it was
| terrible.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I have yet to see a better laptop for 90% of people who
| want a laptop than a MacBook Air. Battery life,
| portability, weight, heat production, reliability, adequate
| performance, price, ports.
|
| They seem to have made all the right compromises.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| "Price" seems like a stretch. Windows laptops start at
| something like $700 dollars cheaper for a new device.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| And they are made of inferior quality components not
| comparable to an Air. See used prices for evidence.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| You get a graphics card for $550, many types of ports...
| And you think the Air is Superior?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| For most people who just want basic spreadsheet, web
| browsing, photo managing, email, word processing, or
| other similar purposes where a graphics card makes no
| difference, yes.
|
| We are long past the times where the average person needs
| to even think about laptop specs other than whether or
| not it has a sufficient size SSD, the battery life is
| long, and it does not get hot.
| gfxgirl wrote:
| Here you are arguing people don't need any power because
| all they do is "basic spreadsheet, web browsing, photo
| managing, email, word processing, or other similar
| purposes" in which case they can get 3-4 windows laptops
| for $199-$299 for the price of one air. If you have 3
| teens that all need a laptop to do "basic spreadsheet,
| web browsing, photo managing, email, word processing, or
| other similar purposes" you can cover them all for $900
| if you go non Mac or you can spend nearly $3k if you go
| mac.
|
| I'm posting this from a Mac but my sister is unlikely to
| ever decide she's willing to spend 3x to 40% more for a
| laptop. She can get 2 Dells with 8gig of ram and 256gig
| of storage, same as the Air for under half the price of
| the Air. I'm not saying the Dell is as good as the Air
| and neither is a Kia as good as a BMW (probably) but a
| Kia costs 1/2 the price and will still get you from point
| A to point B and a $300-$500 Windows PC will also still
| do "basic spreadsheet, web browsing, photo managing,
| email, word processing, or other similar purposes"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is the probability of the $300 windows laptop performing
| 5+ years the same? Will it run hot in your lap? Will you
| have to recharge it 3x as often? Will you have to spend
| time uninstalling malware first? Will it have a screen
| comparable to a retina screen? Will you be able to shut
| the lid and walk away at a moments notice?
|
| Going back to my very first comment:
|
| > They seem to have made all the right compromises.
|
| Yes, a MacBook Air is not the cheapest. It doesn't have a
| GPU. But my point is what it does have provides more
| utility overall to the average buyer per dollar spent.
|
| And there are other manufacturers that have come out with
| similarly good machines at similar prices, but whether it
| is because of Windows' shortcomings or now M1, the Air
| seems to be the ideal.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| I never claimed they had the same components, just that
| it's a stretch to think most people would obtain
| sufficient value by paying hundreds more.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is possible, but a new Air was $900 for the longest
| time. $700 cheaper is a laptop starting at $200, and I
| don't believe any laptop even $500 or less would have
| been made with components likely to last for many years.
|
| It's like that story about a poor person having to spend
| more in the long run buying boots every year than being
| able to spend a little more to buy ones that lasted many
| years.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| The price is poor and the performance is worse(compared
| to anything with a GPU). Reliability is questionable
| given the numerous hardware issues Apple denied over the
| years.
|
| And I'm shocked you thought to mention Ports. I've been
| at parties where someone couldn't present a PowerPoint
| because of the ports on the Air.
| kbelder wrote:
| >I've been at parties where someone couldn't present a
| PowerPoint because of the ports on the Air.
|
| You go to fun parties.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They started at $900, had 2 USB 3.0 ports, a headphone
| jack, an SD card slot, and a thunderbolt 2 port for many
| years.
|
| Again, note the nuance in my statement that it serves the
| purpose for the vast majority of laptop users and its
| amortized cost over many years is certainly less than
| other consumer laptops, as evidenced by the used market.
|
| Nowadays, they are $1k, and they have Retina screen, 2
| USB4/Thunderbolt3 ports. While the port situation may
| have worsened, its performance due to M1 is surely
| unmatched. Unless you are bothered by the port situation,
| it's still probably the best bet you can make for a
| laptop that will be a good to go for 5+ years.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Majority of laptop users won't need to hook up their
| computer to a TV?
|
| And M1 still is inferior to having a gpu.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Majority of laptop users won't need to hook up their
| computer to a TV?
|
| I would be very surprised if even 10% of people connect
| their laptops to TVs. For those that do, thunderbolt to
| hdmi adapters are cheap.
|
| > And M1 still is inferior to having a gpu.
|
| I am sure it is, but average person sees no utility from
| a GPU, but they do utilize long battery life and less
| heat from reduced energy usage of M1.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Apple not good for power users. Got it.
|
| So why would a consumer who isn't a power user spend more
| money on less?
|
| Lighted logo?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They don't have lighted logos, as far as I know. Mine
| doesn't from a few years ago. I've already replied a
| bunch of times showing why I think the laptop is ideal
| for most people.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| I can't imagine people paying 450$ more for a handicapped
| computer because battery life. Do 90% of people use a
| computer without it being plugged in?
|
| I can see 90% of people buying a logo. "I say 123 take
| your hand and come with me bc you look so fine that I
| really want to make you mine"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, I would easily bet the average person values not
| worrying about battery and heat. Coffee shops, lecture
| halls, airplanes, or even just around the house. It is
| amazingly liberating to almost never have to worry about
| charging it, and just be able to close the lid at a
| moments notice and not worry about Windows' problems
| hibernating or standby or whatever.
|
| Look at the comments in this thread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27784640
|
| And it's not $450 more for just that. It's $450 more for
| a higher quality product with higher quality components
| that have a higher probability of lasting many years
| (based on the track record of MacBook Airs).
| deregulateMed wrote:
| It's not higher quality. You just said so.
|
| Yikes.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No, I did not. Higher quality components is not the same
| as higher specs. For example, I would bet that Apple is
| using components binned for higher survival rates, than a
| $500 discount laptop. And I am sure other company's
| premium products use higher quality components too, it's
| not an Apple thing. But for this specific product, the
| all around package of an Air is very competitive.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I think you might be neglecting to include people that
| like high performance dedicated GPUs - (A) scientists,
| (B) engineers, (C) developers, (D) artists, (E)motion
| graphics types, (F) gamers.
|
| Professionally speaking, my work is full of A-E, so, an
| Air is a big nope.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| ...that's why I wrote 90% of people. Maybe it's 80% or
| 70%, but it certainly is top of the line for the average
| user.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| You mentioned reliability, but I remember the butterfly
| keyboard debacle that was denied by Apple for years.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The MacBook Air never had the butterfly keyboard.
| gmadsen wrote:
| you think those are the majority of laptop buyers?
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Aside from the keyboard issues, you're talking about design
| _choices you don 't like_, not design _flaws_. They made
| the choices they made, and by and large executed on them at
| a high degree of quality.
| rasz wrote:
| design flaws, same for 2-3 generations, all the way to
| 2021 models https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQXXqny2wEA
| salamandersauce wrote:
| There's been other issues. MacBook Pros have had issues
| with the screen ribbon cable causing problems with the
| backlight (a.k.a Flexgate). Then there's been issues with
| batteries swelling in 2015 MBPs which impacts the
| trackpad too. Plus there has been countless models with
| GPU failures being commonplace stretching allll the way
| back to to iBook G3.
|
| I would personally consider the 2018 Mac Mini to have a
| design flaw as the case design doesn't allow for good
| Bluetooth reception and using USB 3 so it would lose
| connection to my Magic keyboard and trackpad at least
| once a day which I personally found extremely
| frustrating. I've also had 2 iPad Pro smart keyboards
| fail within a year with the 2nd one only seeing light
| usage. It seems like whatever conductive tape Apple uses
| doesn't handle humidity well and corrodes quickly where I
| live. I'm concerned about my 2018 MBP's long term
| longevity keyboard aside just from the awful awful
| thermals that shoot the machine to T-junction in about a
| minute of actually pushing it but we will see. Probably
| the keyboard will wear out before that.
|
| I think too many people confuse quality and metal
| construction. Yes, Apple builds nice aluminum enclosures
| but they neglect other details to achieve that.
| madmax96 wrote:
| Do you still use Apple laptops? If not what do you use?
|
| Are Apple laptops higher quality, compared to competitors
| (despite design issues)? My current Macbook had the
| screen laminate peel off after a few years. To Apple's
| credit, they promptly repaired the machine at no cost.
| But I've had friends with similarly priced laptops (XPS,
| Razor, ...) who encountered similar build-quality issues,
| but did not receive the same level of support. Granted,
| all this evidence is anecdotal. I am curious to see
| across the board comparisons.
|
| Plus, I'm in the market for a new laptop anyway, so this
| would be a valuable data point. :)
| salamandersauce wrote:
| I currently use a 2018 MBP still. I didn't personally pay
| for it so I don't think I could just get rid of it. Next
| time I think I'll go back to a Thinkpad. I don't feel
| like Macbooks are higher quality for the price than a
| comparably priced Windows laptop with some exception.
| Gaming laptops tend to cut build quality corners to give
| more specs for the money basically.
|
| And did you have Applecare when they repaired your
| machine? I couldn't get them to replace my 2nd iPad Pro
| smart keyboard when it died since it was out of warranty.
| wayneftw wrote:
| A bad design choice is exactly what a design flaw is
| though. There's no other definition. If you make bad
| choices, that's a flaw in your design.
|
| End users have to live with these choices, so we get to
| decide what is a flaw and what is not. Focusing on thin
| instead of useful is a design flaw. Requiring dongles for
| everything is a design flaw.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| "Flawed" does not simply mean "bad". It means "defective"
| or "broken" or "blemished" or the like. A poor design is
| merely unappealing to certain consumers. A flawed design
| _fails to fully function_ in the manner intended.
| sosborn wrote:
| > End users have to live with these choices, so we get to
| decide what is a flaw and what is not.
|
| This is true, but it isn't some collective decision.
| Something you consider a design flaw others might see as
| a design win.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| Nintendo is arguably a weird example though -- in that
| they're a _stellar_ game studio, a _decent_ hardware vendor,
| and an _awful_ business.
|
| They can survive on less powerful consoles, and historically
| have _especially_ in the era before indies blew up, in large
| part because they sell them pretty much entirely off first-
| party titles anyway. Even as of this year (Wikipedia 's stats
| on this were last updated 3/31), the top-selling third-party
| release for Switch is ranked _15_ overall. [0] That game,
| Monster Hunter Rise, sold less than a remake of Pokemon
| Yellow, ports of multiple Wii U titles -- namely New Super
| Mario Bros. U and Mario Kart 8 (which is incidentally at the
| top of the list), Ring Fit Adventure -- a game that 's only
| available via physical copies because it requires specialized
| hardware and has still _repeatedly_ sold out, and whatever
| the hell you want to call the travesty that was Super Mario
| 3D All-Stars. (I 'll get back to that one.)
|
| As a hardware company, they're all over the place. They
| experiment a lot, particularly with control schemes, but some
| (Wii, DS) execute better than others (Wii U) and not all of
| them are the best quality. The Switch is a _marvel_ ,
| conceptually, but the Joy-Cons have well-documented drift
| issues, and the Pro Controller has the worst D-Pad I've ever
| used despite being from the company that _invented those_.
| Its heyday included a pad that seemed to be built for comic
| book characters (6-arm Spider-Man and Professor X both come
| to mind), and while the GameCube pad is one of their better-
| designed ones _overall_ , I started to understand Smash
| players' hand issues the moment I tried using it for Tetris.
| Meanwhile it took a literal plague for them to stop being the
| only vendor since Microsoft, with the original X-Box, not to
| include Ethernet.
|
| Which brings me to Nintendo as a _company_. The kind whose
| stated solution for online when demoing Smash Ultimate was
| "lol hope you've bought our $30 wired adapter!" (And let's
| note, refusing to ship with this has made their already-dodgy
| online worse, at scale.) The one that would shut down Smash
| tournaments for using emulators on a 20-year-old game to
| enable online play during a plague, as if that same crowd
| wouldn't 100% just _buy_ Super Smash Bros. Melee for the
| Nintendo GameCube again if they just gave it an actual re-
| release on a modern console. The company that, when it _does_
| port older titles, typically just ships lightly-retooled
| versions of them and proceeds to charge the full price of a
| modern AAA. The publisher that took Super Mario 64, one of
| the most iconic games it 's ever released, for its _25th
| anniversary_ , and not only shipped a barebones port (of this
| and two other titles), but actively enabled scalpers by
| giving it a release so limited that they de-listed the
| _digital_ version after six months.
|
| As someone who enjoys a number of their games I totally see
| what you mean, but getting legitimate access to those titles
| involves a bunch of compromises I wouldn't generally have to
| make with other platforms and/or studios. As much as I don't
| exactly wish for consoles to become a duopoly again, a part
| of me really wonders what it would be like if Nintendo had
| gone the way of Sega.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-
| selling_Nintendo_...
| swiley wrote:
| Apple used to be ok but you're pretty much stuck with OSX in
| their newer machines which is a pretty mediocre OS for
| development.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| I could see where you were coming from because Apple doesn't
| offer budget hardware and it's easy to mistakenly compare a
| $1000 laptop with a $500 laptop that doesn't have a video
| card.
|
| But Nintendo is notorious for releasing low quality stuff
| with their IP skinned on it.
|
| A product isn't more than it's quality metrics, if you
| believe so, I highly recommend taking a marketing class.
| roblabla wrote:
| > But Nintendo is notorious for releasing low quality stuff
| with their IP skinned on it.
|
| Nintendo is also widely praised for consistently releasing
| innovative gaming platforms at fair prices. And that's what
| they tend to market and invest in _heavily_ - I 've never
| seen an advertisement for any of their low-quality cash-
| grab toys (which, yeah, they do exist, and they do
| suck...).
|
| > A product isn't more than it's quality metrics, if you
| believe so, I highly recommend taking a marketing class.
|
| OP's claim was that nintendo's product are low-quality,
| sold at high-price, thanks to relentless marketing. But the
| products being heavily marketed by Nintendo do tend to be
| high-quality (for instance, The Switch, a portable console
| that can be used comfortably enough as a home console, with
| several innovative input methods and a fairly wide range of
| high-quality games).
|
| If you purely look at the hardware specs, it may seem like
| a low-quality product, but that's not the correct quality
| metric to use in this case.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Take a marketing class to defend yourself from corporate
| brainwashing.
|
| Nintendo has been literally brainwashing us since we were
| babies and had no concept of marketing.
|
| I'm not even talking about hardware specs. The switch has
| joycon issues, expensive games that are mediocre, and for
| some reason you confuse investment and innovation with
| quality.
|
| Wasting money and bad ideas are not qualities.
|
| I used to be a Nintendo fanatic, but their systems and
| flagship games since N64 have woken me up to their
| quality issues. The fact that people suggested BOTW was a
| greatest game of all time despite having only 1 temple
| theme and 3 enemies (with various skins), shows you that
| we are under mind control.
| parasubvert wrote:
| Or, perhaps, you are not in touch with how people
| evaluate and experience products, unless your intent is
| dry humour.
|
| People love the Switch and loved games like BOTW , Mario
| Odyssey, etc. because they were the best products
| Nintendo had shipped in 20 years.
|
| I hadn't owned a Nintendo console since the SNES, thought
| the Wii was "meh". They knocked this one out of the park
| - they managed to make a portable gaming device relevant
| in a world where everyone has a smartphone. Part of the
| challenge is that the completion largely do not build
| portable gaming devices.
|
| Apple and Samsung also consistently rank very high in
| tech support and customer satisfaction indexes. Let's
| look at the main alternatives in the smartphone space:
| Pixel, LG, Motorola, Xiaomi, Huawei. Are these paragons
| of quality? Or are you comparing against an imaginary
| standard of quality?
| Ygg2 wrote:
| > But the products being heavily marketed by Nintendo do
| tend to be high-quality
|
| Didn't they have a few hardware related scandals. Like
| the famous joy control drift.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Like the famous joy control drift.
|
| Yep, but that's pretty much it. Every company--even the
| best of companies--have poor products. The analog sticks
| on the Switch are Nintendo's worst hardware in decades.
| machello13 wrote:
| > it's easy to mistakenly compare a $1000 laptop with a
| $500 laptop that doesn't have a video card.
|
| Lol, come on dude. "Yeah I can see where you're coming
| from, if you're an idiot it's easy to think Apple is good."
| zibzab wrote:
| This is such a BS lawsuit.
|
| It would be so much better for consumers if they had instead
| looked into googles firebase and play services shenanigans.
| tyingq wrote:
| I don't think this suit makes it any less likely that various
| governments will come after that angle also. There's quite a
| lot of anti-(Google|Facebook|Amazon) sentiment floating around
| in various government entities right now. I assume it must
| resonate with voters.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> I assume it must resonate with voters._
|
| Most voters care more about things like their salary,
| healthcare, education, retirement and real estate prices, and
| in general just making ends meet, not which SV megacorp gets
| to be the defacto tech monopoly.
| tyingq wrote:
| Perhaps, though if it's not voters, what is causing the
| uptick in interest among politicians?
| modeless wrote:
| Fear that tech companies were becoming more influential
| than the politicians. They're protecting themselves from
| a perceived threat.
| jiscariot wrote:
| Along those lines, the NYT isn't writing their 100th FB
| hit piece "for the good of the people", they see a
| competitor with a platform. And NYT has a lot of cultural
| power.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Lobbying from equally wealthy competitors who couldn't
| become monopolies?
| tyingq wrote:
| Seems odd that lobbying from what would be much smaller
| entities would somehow overtake lobbying from the giants.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Would you consider someone like Microsoft a small entity?
| Do you think they're just gonna sit back and accept that
| Apple and Google got to shove them out of the mobile
| space completely?
| vimacs2 wrote:
| Not to mention much of traditional media are geared
| against the interests of the tech giants. It's older
| villains going after the newer villains.
| paulgb wrote:
| What are the Firebase shenanigans you refer to? First I've
| heard of it but I'm interested.
| swiley wrote:
| I'd imagine it's something like iOS where you don't get
| battery friendly push notifications without using services
| from the OS vendor and there's no way for the user to select
| a 3rd party service instead.
| seized wrote:
| Which is fine for most users. I don't want every app doing
| its own inefficient push/pull notifications and tanking my
| battery, and I am as pro open source/etc/etc as most here.
| swiley wrote:
| The result of this is that every app _does_ do
| inefficient notifications because in many cases it has no
| access to an external (to the app) notification service
| on the phone.
|
| Just another crappy smartphone OS feature that works fine
| on OSes where the developers don't want to control every
| aspect of the device.
| asddubs wrote:
| Well, it doesn't have to be a binary choice between that
| and google offering it. There could be an OS API where
| you can hotswap who actually delivers those
| notifications. Right now I believe the google server
| actually gets hardcoded into the apps using it.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play
| store_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27768127 - July
| 2021 (105 comments)
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Hope they wont fudge it like the FTC did with Facebook.
| Lammy wrote:
| This article is missing a huge part of the story. Google weren't
| scared of _just_ a competing app store but of Samsung replacing
| Android itself with their own Tizen OS. The Galaxy Store was just
| the consumer bridge to that possibility.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-09 23:02 UTC)