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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#171

Post by malfist »

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.

That isn't a bad thing for customers.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#172

Post by LordKeren »

jefftk wrote: post #62
vlozko wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, paying off phone manufacturers and companies to not create or preinstall third party app stores on to devices is what hurt Google here

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#173

Post by threeseed »

LordKeren wrote: post #164
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.

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

No but they make a lot of money through licensing and Nintendo Store sales.

That would all disappear if you could side-load any content.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#174

Post by rkagerer »

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…

Finally. I'm glad this caught up to them. I used to have a lot of warm fuzzies for Google, but they've become downright despicable in so many respects. The app store has leaned toward unfair for publishers (and users) for years, I hope something good comes of this.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#175

Post by xuki »

andersa wrote: post #113
scarface_74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case consoles from Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo? Why stop there? Smart TV manufacturers? Cars?

Yes. Given time. Take down all of these stupid walled gardens. People should own their devices and the manufacturer should have absolutely no say in what applications they install, from where they get those, or who they do business with, and should not have the ability to tax all usage of the device post-sale. You know, just like PCs. Since you brought up the TV analogy - how would you feel about being forced to pay…

Yes please. Lock it up for consumers all they want but let people who want to tinker, tinker.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#176

Post by jwells89 »

behnamoh wrote: post #82
judge2020 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lose…

So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?

The way I’m reading it is that your platform needs to be totally open, desktop-OS-style, or manufactured as a single piece iOS/console style. Anything between those two is where the trouble comes in.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#177

Post by aidenn0 »

jefftk wrote: post #62
vlozko wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the moral of these decisions are "Go vertical, or go home?"

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#178

Post by Spivak »

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

Which isn't really "a thing" legally. The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market in a broader sense. A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#179

Post by NicoJuicy »

dantheman wrote: post #116
cyberax wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.

Nah, they shake down everyone they can.

They can't shake down someone out of their reach.

They can identify them though ( green icon... )

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#180

Post by scarface_74 »

xuki wrote: post #175
andersa wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Given time. Take down all of these stupid walled gardens. People should own their devices and the manufacturer should have absolutely no say in what applications they install, from where they get those, or who they do business with, and should not have the ability to tax all usage of the device post-sale. You know, just like PCs. Since you brought up the TV analogy - how would you feel about being forced to pay…

Yes please. Lock it up for consumers all they want but let people who want to tinker, tinker.

And you can do that today by buying an Android device
Post reply on HN