> "Google recognized that Epic might not accept its offer. 'As a potential alternative', a senior Google executive proposed that Google 'consider approaching Tencent,' a company that owns a minority stake in Epic, 'to either (a) buy Epic shares from Tencent to get more control over Epic', or '(b) join up with Tencent to buy 100% of Epic,'" the complaint said.
So for Google to control Epic and perhaps protect themselves in the anti-trust complaints, they wanted to buy up shares from Tencent or team up with them to buy Epic out 100%, with the goal to stop them from complaining about their monopolistic behaviours in the Play Store.
Now that's one way of showing your true nature, since they know they will lose anyway.
> Dubbed the Open App Markets Act, it would let you install apps from places other than Apple's App Store or Google's Play Store, which both come pre-installed on iPhones and Androids, respectively.
> The industry calls that sideloading, and if it's allowed, would mark a turning point in the companies' iron grip on how people access apps and use their phones.
Epic's lawsuit against Google is about the Play Store being an all or nothing affair. If you want in the play store you use their IAPs, or you do what Epic has done and make your users sideload and deal with the extra tech support and discoverability challenges that presents. Epic want to be in the store but not use Google's IAPs.
This is a bit different from the listed act and the complaint against Apple where you're just now allowed on iDevices without complying
> Although Google leaves open the technical possibility for Android consumers to acquire some apps without using the Play Store, this can only be accomplished through a competing app store installed on the device (either through preloading by an OEM or through the user sideloading the store), or through sideloading of individual apps. Google takes various steps to discourage OEMs from directly competing or sponsoring any app store competition. Google makes the sideloading process unnecessarily cumbersome and impractical by adding superfluous, misleading, and discouraging security warnings and by deterring users by requiring them to grant permission multiple times for a single app installation (discussed in more detail in Sections I.C. and I.D. below). The effect of Google’s conduct is to practically eliminate competition in Android app distribution.
Imagine the data this would yield: millions and millions of desktop applications with chat logs, hardware specs, usage patterns, social graphs, anti cheat that monitors everything, even more spending habits, the developer ecosystem and any monitoring that goes with that…
Not really. Doom Eternal was review bombed when they added Denuvo after it launched, to the point that it was removed pretty quickly. Valorant's kernel level anti-cheat was also complained about quite a bit. Maybe console gamers don't complain about it much since they don't have an option, but PC gamers get pretty up in arms about it, or anything for the most part.
So this is interesting, because yesterday some bloke had a thread on HN around how his FAANG mates are of the subpar IQ sort and he wasn't happy with that arrangement.
So then, which cabal in Google would be responsible for coordinating a multinational hostile takeover attempt, and how many standard deviations are we talking about here? Do they have a department to themselves? "Mergers, Acquisitions & Hostile Takeovers." Has a nice ring to it. I wonder if the lad should apply for a transfer.
The title of this seems... precarious. Wouldn't a better title be something along the lines of...
> Epic alleges Google considered [a] coordinated, multinational, hostile takeover attempt [of their business]
... given legal proceedings seem to be on-going?
Also, from TFA:
> In a statement, a Google spokesperson said, "As we have stated previously, Epic's lawsuit is baseless and mischaracterizes our business conversations. Android provides more choices in mobile devices for developers and consumers."
I'm flagging this comment because OP has no affiliation posted on their profile but seem very interestingly pro google in their comments.
I would feel less weird about this if an affiliation was posted, but asking the moderation team to change something that's highly critical of Google is weird to me considering the post history.
Notwithstanding my affiliation is no one's business but my own (it's not a rule on HN), your claim is rather baseless: I read the article, directly cited it, and asked for a review to ensure something more consistent with reality. This community call mods' attention to title alteration requests regularly.
In fact, you're out of bounds:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. [1]
I have a strong distaste for hyperbole and {mis,dis}information. That doesn't make me pro-Google. At best, I'd characterize myself as all-FAANG-ambivalent.
Okay this is probably a stupid question, but how would Google go about doing this when Tim Sweeney is adamant that he owns over 50% of Epic's shares and Tencent only has a 'non-controlling' (as Sweeney has said in the past) 40%? As Epic is a private company, I don't understand how this is possible, but then again I'm not well versed in this stuff at all.
It was the first question I had when I read the headline as well. The only possibility I could think of was the 60% of EPIC doesn't belong to Tim alone, but a holding companies that could have other investors. If Tencent were willing to sell Google could just buy another 10.1% controlling stake.
The problem with this theory is that Tencent is one of the largest gaming companies in the world. And "the" largest in Mobile gaming. The lawsuit EPIC had against Google directly benefits Tencent. So why would Tencent sell their shares to Google?
27 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 78.4 ms ] thread> "Google recognized that Epic might not accept its offer. 'As a potential alternative', a senior Google executive proposed that Google 'consider approaching Tencent,' a company that owns a minority stake in Epic, 'to either (a) buy Epic shares from Tencent to get more control over Epic', or '(b) join up with Tencent to buy 100% of Epic,'" the complaint said.
So for Google to control Epic and perhaps protect themselves in the anti-trust complaints, they wanted to buy up shares from Tencent or team up with them to buy Epic out 100%, with the goal to stop them from complaining about their monopolistic behaviours in the Play Store.
Now that's one way of showing your true nature, since they know they will lose anyway.
Regardless, absolutely vicious creatures.
[0] https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/google-tencent-epic-games...
> The industry calls that sideloading, and if it's allowed, would mark a turning point in the companies' iron grip on how people access apps and use their phones.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-apple-app-store-downl...
Epic's lawsuit against Google is about the Play Store being an all or nothing affair. If you want in the play store you use their IAPs, or you do what Epic has done and make your users sideload and deal with the extra tech support and discoverability challenges that presents. Epic want to be in the store but not use Google's IAPs.
This is a bit different from the listed act and the complaint against Apple where you're just now allowed on iDevices without complying
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210707/17411147129/googl...
So then, which cabal in Google would be responsible for coordinating a multinational hostile takeover attempt, and how many standard deviations are we talking about here? Do they have a department to themselves? "Mergers, Acquisitions & Hostile Takeovers." Has a nice ring to it. I wonder if the lad should apply for a transfer.
> Epic alleges Google considered [a] coordinated, multinational, hostile takeover attempt [of their business]
... given legal proceedings seem to be on-going?
Also, from TFA:
> In a statement, a Google spokesperson said, "As we have stated previously, Epic's lawsuit is baseless and mischaracterizes our business conversations. Android provides more choices in mobile devices for developers and consumers."
(@dang, not urgent, but thoughts?)
I would feel less weird about this if an affiliation was posted, but asking the moderation team to change something that's highly critical of Google is weird to me considering the post history.
In fact, you're out of bounds:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. [1]
I have a strong distaste for hyperbole and {mis,dis}information. That doesn't make me pro-Google. At best, I'd characterize myself as all-FAANG-ambivalent.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Unless it is accompanied by some nefarious actions to force them to sell, it’s should be “Google considered acquiring Epic”
It was the first question I had when I read the headline as well. The only possibility I could think of was the 60% of EPIC doesn't belong to Tim alone, but a holding companies that could have other investors. If Tencent were willing to sell Google could just buy another 10.1% controlling stake.
The problem with this theory is that Tencent is one of the largest gaming companies in the world. And "the" largest in Mobile gaming. The lawsuit EPIC had against Google directly benefits Tencent. So why would Tencent sell their shares to Google?