Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#61

Post by lijok »

DeIlliad wrote: post #51
favorited wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

We learned in the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple cut sweetheart deals with Netflix and other companies as well. Am I missing how this is different?

Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#62

Post by jefftk »

vlozko wrote: post #36
shmerl wrote: post #29

Apple should be punished for this more than Google. Google doesn't ban competing browsers, Apple does.

It’s because Google did a lot of things that Apple didn’t that was found to be anti-competitive. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...

Yes, but in a weird way: Apple doesn't allow competition for phone manufacturing for their ecosystem, so the equivalent of "deals with manufacturers" are entirely internal. Fostering a phone ecosystem that overall has more competition has hurt Google here.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#64

Post by kyruzic »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24
wnevets wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?

Yeah - but give the same case to 10 different juries, and you'll get different decisions. Probably will get at least one outlier with different 10 judges, too.

There's two possible decisions the jury could make, and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. Obviously not perfect but a lot better than you describe.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#65

Post by fallingknife »

bilekas wrote: post #49
rsweeney21 wrote: post #27

This is huge! I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. Might be time to revisit them...

This seems a great excuse to blame Instead of procrastination to me.. So 70% revenue was not enough to get something off the ground?

Most existing businesses would fail if they faced those conditions, so yeah, actually it is a great excuse.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#66

Post by stevenwoo »

vlozko wrote: post #36
shmerl wrote: post #29

Apple should be punished for this more than Google. Google doesn't ban competing browsers, Apple does.

It’s because Google did a lot of things that Apple didn’t that was found to be anti-competitive. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...

For a second I thought you just posted the same link but that was very informative. It's just me but I think Google deleting all the chats automatically about the topics involved would have had me planted deep suspicion about motive in my mind.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#67

Post by jauntywundrkind »

wnevets wrote: post #18
meepmorp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing it's because this was a jury trial and Apple's wasn't.

Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?

The judiciary seems ridiculously slanted in favor of pro-business. That a bench trial would decide in favor of monopoly power is entirely unexciting & expected.

That a jury trial would decide in favor of consumer choice & be anti-monopoly quite reciprocally mirrors that strong anti-trust feeling Americans very widely feel, but which their government won't do.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#68

Post by aegypti »

solardev wrote: post #54
superb_dev wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is still working, just slowly. Conflicting rulings from lower courts in very similar cases will be appealed and get put before the Supreme Court, whose ruling will apply to everyone

If they even deign to hear it. Do the supremes even know what a smartphone is? I've never seen a more out of touch bunch of people with so much power.

Half the court are in their 50s, it isn’t 2016 anymore for better and worse.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#69

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #22

I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything. Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.

Third party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#70

Post by judge2020 »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #35
favorited wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

It seems the reasoning is that Google isn't really competing against the iOS app store, in which sense they don't look much like a monopoly, but just against all the potential other android app stores, in which sense they do look a lot like a monopoly. Seems sort of ironic that Apple avoided this argument by just not having any alternative app stores at all to be anticompetitive with.

It's more nuanced than that. Apple successfully argued that the combination hardware+software experience of iOS and its app store is "the product", since people don't buy iOS for e.g. what bootloader it uses, but rather the wide ranging ecosystem experience and the apps that Apple certifies and verifies through a "feature" of "the product". Without such tight integration of the hardware and software, the product loses immense value to both consumers and developers.

Android being open actually made its own point of being "an OS with other products [app stores] running on top of it".

Post reply on HN