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

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#91

Post by scarface_74 »

reilly3000 wrote: post #50

Assuming 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…

Epic already lost the trial in the Apple case. Courts in the US and other countries have treated Google differently as an OS provider to OEMs than Apple as a single vendor.

Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#93

Post by aaomidi »

bilekas wrote: post #56

I'm not sure how I feel about this, on the one hand monopolies are obviously very anti consumer, but I do see Google's point of securing the already questionable appStore. But surely there's a happy medium in there to simply allow 3rd party payment processing?

Why is there this assumption that third party apps are going to be so unsafe?

We already run untrusted executable code in the form of JavaScript.

Why does the android system need to be different? Why can’t we say the OS needs sandboxing, api permissions, etc.

I really don’t want the only thing protecting my phone being the fact that a human sometimes reviews an app.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#94

Post by cyberax »

EA-3167 wrote: post #80
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden

You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does.

Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square.

If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#95

Post by scarface_74 »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #90
astrange wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Downloading an APK from a website is just as easy as installing an exe on windows from some site, and millions of barely tech-literate people do that every day

Yes and they get viruses, malware, and ransomware from doing so.

My mom searched for a printer driver and ended up installing some third party crap wars on her computer

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#96

Post by Spivak »

LordKeren wrote: post #2

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. Th…

And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#97

Post by rpgwaiter »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #69
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.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store

It should all totally be open though

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#98

Post by aaomidi »

scarface_74 wrote: post #91
reilly3000 wrote: post #50

Assuming 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…

Epic already lost the trial in the Apple case. Courts in the US and other countries have treated Google differently as an OS provider to OEMs than Apple as a single vendor. Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?

> Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?

God I hope so.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#99

Post by [deleted] »

EA-3167 wrote: post #80
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#100

Post by SushiHippie »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #69
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.

What does google play store have compared to third party stores?
Post reply on HN