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

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#211

Post by rvba »

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…

You allready have 2 stores on samsung devices: goole play store and the samsung store. They both work the same. Choose an app and install it. They work like any other app...

You can also download apps from the "f droid" depository.

You can even turn on developer options and install raw apk files. Those can contain viruses. (Or more probably: are pirated)

Funny to have this discussion hacker news? I thought everyone was using side loaded apks from apkmirror when you needed an old version.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#212

Post by callalex »

Pxtl wrote: post #187

The lesson is loud and clear: if you want to destroy normal consumer protections, do it using technologic dictatorship like Apple and the gaming console companies, not through an open platform and then soft power with your vendors. Feels like a "if you run somebody over with your car it's better to back up and kill them" moment of perverse legal incentives.

Really? The lesson I learned is that if you make a product that the US government relies on, you are immune from prosecution. It works across industries from oil to manufacturing to computing.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#213

Post by shmerl »

martimarkov wrote: post #194
shmerl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they did their own stuff, but Apple got away with a very nasty one. So I don't think competition law works. Results look completely random, like tossing a coin.

Being sued for different things - yeah you tend to get different results. And what is the definition of nasty here? It's very subjective. Apple doesn't own the mobile market and are below 50% control of it so they are not really a monopoly. I'm also not sure how you can use anti-trust or anti-monopoly against them when they have been found again and again to not be a monopoly.

Banning competing browsers is illegal and Apple should have never gotten away with it. Not only an abstract absolute monopoly is a problem. Apple has a lot of leverage on the industry and is causing harm to the market with anti-competitive behavior.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#214

Post by Jensson »

scarface_74 wrote: post #147
cma wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A teaser rate? Good luck getting publisher or VC funding for something that is a bet on you going big. They will discount projections by the full 30.

Yes I’m sure you could get VC funding by selling an app on the App Store.

Yeah of course you could, why wouldn't you? That is one of the easiest ways to get VC funding, up there with making a website.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#215

Post by Shish2k »

aaomidi wrote: post #160
foolfoolz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because this is what computing used to be. you would download some random executable off some random website and hope you didn’t get infected with malware except the stakes are much higher on your phone than your 1998 computer because your phone is more powerful: your phone has more personal data, financial info, and can consume costly telecom resources

So random websites I go to are now gonna be able to take over my phone? Why aren’t we seeing this scale of attacks using JavaScript?

Javascript was designed to be secure-by-default, and it takes a vast amount of effort to keep it that way

Native apps were designed to be powerful-by-default, and the amount of effort to bolt security on after the fact is orders of magnitude more

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#216

Post by dns_snek »

EA-3167 wrote: post #134
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walled garden is fine. Charging exorbitant fees because you've strong armed any and all competition out of the game isn't. A reasonable fee with 0 competition would be fine. No fee, while hiking the prices of the devices would be fine.

How can you seriously say "any and all competition" when Android and Google exist?

You're looking at it from the user's perspective, this case is about B2B.

Imagine you're working on a hardware product that can communicate with your other devices over Bluetooth. How exactly do you avoid Apple in this scenario?

You can't, or you won't be in business for very long. You need to develop an app because Apple intentionally gimps their browser, and to release the app you must agree to their terms.

They're in a dominant position that allows them to dictate unfavorable terms to the rest of the industry which, among other things, stifles innovation.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#217

Post by lancesells »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #158
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.

When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no…

There's some nuance to the 30% fee. Under $1M in revenue it's 15% and after a year it's 15%. No fee for free apps. No fee for physical things.

30% is way too high. 15% seems high as well without knowing the costs or benefits of the App Store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#218

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

cyberax wrote: post #188
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no…

> When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. That's exactly what Apple does. If you make a mobile app (for example, a presentation manager) you _have_ to support iOS, or you will go out of business. As a developer, you simply don't have a choice. You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely.

Apparently you read only half the comment. Do you understand the distinction between destruction and construction or don't you?

By your logic there would be no towns, cities, countries, unions, companies, any kind of organization at all. Because any time you need to pay for something, you feel like it's the mafia.

- Is it the mafia when it comes time to pay time for rent. "I HAVE to pay rent or I'll be kicked out on the street!"

- Is it the mafia when it comes time to pay your bill at a restaurant. "I HAVE to pay my bill or I'll be hungry!"

No one owes you anything. You ask for money for your apps, don't you? Because why are you complaining otherwise? 40% of $0 is $0, isn't it? But you require money, despite maybe someone could be like "you're mafia unless I can play your game for free".

Things cost money. Grow up and start acting like an adult.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#219

Post by dagmx »

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.

The 30% is only an issue for the jury in the context of the trial where it stands to gain against competing stores.

The jury did not set precedent that 30% fees in and off themselves are bad. It has very little relevance to Apple or other single market platforms (consoles etc) since they have no competing store product.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#220

Post by rvba »

scarface_74 wrote: post #153
cbozeman wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Mom needs more training on how to differentiate between legitimate sites and non-legitimate ones. I've said it before, I'll say it again, as many times as people need to hear it: There is no such thing as, "I'm just not a computer person!" We're over and done with that era of human history. Just like we're over and done with, "I just can't read and write!" Too bad. You live in a world were reading and writing is…

And how has that worked for the last 40 years?

It worked pretty well.

Should we ban cars since there are people who cannot drive?

Post reply on HN