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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#221

Post by madeofpalk »

nerdix wrote: post #203
madeofpalk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was punished for making deals to limit competition on their ‘open’ platform. Apple doesn’t really make these deals, so they weren’t punished for that.

So Google should have never allowed competition to begin with like Apple. That doesn't seem like a great answer to me.

No, Google shouldn’t have given Riot Games $10m in marketing to prevent launching a competing android store, or give OEMs 20% cut of Play revenue to prevent them from bundling competing stores. Or cut a special deal with Spotify where it pays 0% while still using Play Store billing.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#222

Post by mikhailt »

nerdix wrote: post #203
madeofpalk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was punished for making deals to limit competition on their ‘open’ platform. Apple doesn’t really make these deals, so they weren’t punished for that.

So Google should have never allowed competition to begin with like Apple. That doesn't seem like a great answer to me.

They did not allow competition, they made illegal deals to keep their App Store installed on other devices.

If they left it alone and all OEMs chose to keep Google play store and billing, nothing would’ve happened.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#223

Post by jonbell »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #196
madeofpalk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exe…

Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.

There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#224

Post by soulofmischief »

martimarkov wrote: post #169
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 ce…

The problem is that this "choice" in iOS is an illusion, if both Google and Apple employ user-hostile, monopolist tactics. That's like saying someone chooses to stay with an abusive guardian when the only alternative, foster care, brings its own sets of challenges.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#225

Post by mvdtnz »

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…

Wait a second are you saying Apple is a government unto itself?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#226

Post by slimsag »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #123
tantalor wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is?

> 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" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's calle…

If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#227

Post by scarface_74 »

Jensson wrote: post #214
scarface_74 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a huge difference between making a “service” exposed by an app and making an app.

How many successful “apps” do you know of? And most successful “services” that people access through the App Store don’t go through the App Store for payments

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#228

Post by Gigachad »

Shish2k wrote: post #215
aaomidi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not for mobile. The default is to have everything sensitive locked down.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#229

Post by root_axis »

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…

I don't think likening Apple's stranglehold on users to the authority of a government helps your case.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#230

Post by brokenodo »

plus wrote: post #166
Racing0461 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Court technically can if Google asked for JMOL prior the case going to the jury.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50

Post reply on HN