[deleted]
Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
71–80 of 1001 posts
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#72This 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?
Have a look at AWS’s margins if you want a deeper understanding
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#73Assuming this ruling stands, and the pattern is extended to Apple as well, what does a multi-app-store world look like? How does one "install" a new app store, what sort of permissions does it get? Who can start a new app store? What risks does a user accept when they do business with a 3rd party store? I for one would welcome a mobile store from Valve, Epic etc, especially if I could have my purchases work on multip…
It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#74This 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...
Good thing it's 15% for both of them then.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#75I suggest that this actually makes Sweeney _more_ historically influential than Carmack. They both have remarkably similar origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer)
[deleted]
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#76Didn't Apple effectively win their lawsuit while having an actual monopoly on iPhone app installs? Can someone explain why Google lost despite android having all sorts of way to install apps while bypassing the play store?
[deleted]
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#77Oh hey, will you look at that.
I remember arguing with people for years about these cases.
The thing with the app store situations is that Epic/app developers only need to win a single time vs the app stores, whereas the app stores need to win every battle.
Either it will be through existing anti trust laws, or through new laws being created, or through the same thing happening in any major country in the world.
Because as soon as there is a single win, the whole app store system all crumbles and developers win.
I wonder what the excuse will be next over these app stores.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#78Earlier 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.
I think the ruling is more about saying Google did the wrong thing, not Apple did the right thing.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#79Earlier 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 not the first time Google has been paradoxically punished for being more open than Apple. When you have partners and competitors then there are a lot of people to argue against you in court. When you forbid competition and partner with nobody then the people harmed are the theoretical partners and competitors you would have had, but theoretical people don't show up in court.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#80For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] 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. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if som…
Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!
I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people?
You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.