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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#161

Post by teaearlgraycold »

raincole wrote: post #128
threeseed wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be terrible for consoles. They would not be able to recover their costs early enough in the lifecycle. Which means that the time between console releases would be much longer than it already is. It also would put Nintendo in an untenable situation since they rely on low price hardware as their differentiation.

The would be the end of consoles. At this point consoles have very few advantages to PC. If they got "opened up" it would be zero.

A beautiful future

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#162

Post by Racing0461 »

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…

> The jury

These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#163

Post by xuki »

mise_en_place wrote: post #89
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google was really a victim of their own success. By making Android an open platform, they increased adoption by smartphone OEMs, but on the flip side it made them liable in this very specific case.

It’s optional to use your position as the OS developer to squash other app stores.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#164

Post by LordKeren »

threeseed wrote: post #110
aaomidi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms? God I hope so.

It would be terrible for consoles. They would not be able to recover their costs early enough in the lifecycle. Which means that the time between console releases would be much longer than it already is. It also would put Nintendo in an untenable situation since they rely on low price hardware as their differentiation.

I don’t think Nintendo has ever sold consoles at a per-unit loss. It would actually probably help them since it would raise the cost of Sony and Microsoft’s offerings even higher over theirs

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#166

Post by plus »

Racing0461 wrote: post #162
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…

> The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?

The judge cannot override the jury's ruling, so unless Google's appeal succeeds, the ruling stays.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#167

Post by gjsman-1000 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #159
ravetcofx wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?

Apple has global dominance on market profits

The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives.

For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#168

Post by clhodapp »

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?

Why shouldn't they?

I know for sure that if it were possible to sideload software onto my Switch or PS5, that would definitely benefit me as a consumer. The fact that I have a reasonably powerful computer attached to my TV but can't install software on it without convincing Sony to sell me a janky dev kit for way too much money is just wasteful.

Just about the only objection I can imagine is "piracy", but the locked-down nature of these platforms has surely not stopped piracy from occurring. Nor has piracy caused the failure of Valve's game store or the downfall of their gaming hardware.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#169

Post by martimarkov »

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.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel.

I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I certainly do so and so do my parents who haven't had an issue with random apps scamming them and stealing their card details or passwords.

I really don't understand the negative sentiment against Apple - guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers and we are not really touching those or being that vocal which to me shows that it's not really a moral stance and it's a "my profits are affected stance".

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#170

Post by scarface_74 »

aaomidi wrote: post #155
threeseed wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be terrible for consoles. They would not be able to recover their costs early enough in the lifecycle. Which means that the time between console releases would be much longer than it already is. It also would put Nintendo in an untenable situation since they rely on low price hardware as their differentiation.

All I’m hearing is we’d significantly reduce ewaste and force consoles to compete to keep themselves relevant by not allowing them a monopoly.

And this is why posters on HN make horrible lawyers.

How is a market with three competitors, four if you count PCs and even more if you count phones “a monopoly”?

Btw, the judge in the Apple case said that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in game distribution

Post reply on HN