[dead]
Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> There is a huge difference between making a “service” exposed by an app and making an app.
Not in terms of Apple pricing, which is what we discussed.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#243Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
And malware has never existed in the Google Play store, right?
The point is that if you are the owner of the device you get to choose what to do with it, not Google. If the trade off for that freedom is an increased risk of malware then so be it. The people that want to only use the Google Play store as their source of software are free to do so, that's the beauty of your device being /your/ device.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#245The 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.
The lesson should be: do not get caught paying off companies to not compete with you when you already have a monopoly because you will get pilloried by a jury.
Because that is what Google just got punished for doing. They paid off companies to not ship third party app stores pre installed, pressured software companies to not make third party app stores, and gave money to companies to not compete with Google play
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely untenable for there to be a law that applies to one company but not a competitor doing an identical thing.
Maybe it's not an identical thing when you get into the details.
Yeah, Apple is even more restrictive and monopolistic, which somehow means they're in the clear.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#247Earlier 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.
It's not the first time Google has been paradoxically punished for being more open than Apple. When you have partners and competitors then there are a lot of people to argue against you in court. When you forbid competition and partner with nobody then the people harmed are the theoretical partners and competitors you would have had, but theoretical people don't show up in court.
Your last sentence almost gets the point: Apple never claimed iOS is an open platform open, nor made it available to other hardware vendors to use as they wish.
This isn't Google being "punished for being more open" it's punishing them for claiming to be open and then doing a heap of hidden deals to prevent competition.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#248Oh hey, will you look at that. I remember arguing with people for years about these cases. The thing with the app store situations is that Epic/app developers only need to win a single time vs the app stores, whereas the app stores need to win every battle. Either it will be through existing anti trust laws, or through new laws being created, or through the same thing happening in any major country in the world. Beca…
If I ran Apple or Google (and was running with the "customer safety" angle): If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. Just like they have guidelines for their own store's apps, have the same guidelines for third-party stores. It puts the onus on third-party stores to make sure they're just as stringent as the parent store/platform. If you fail to be…
> If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards.
I am not sure if you even posted on the right comment or if you even read the article.
This whole post is about how actually those rules are illegal and therefore we don't have to follow them.
The whole point is that actually we can use the law to force Google or Apple to change their rules, or forcibly allow developers to not follow them.
> your store gets booted.
If Google or Apple doesn't follow the law then they will be forced to do so by the government, and fined large amounts of money.
The rules of the US government overrule the rules of companies.
> If I ran Apple or Google (and was running with the "customer safety" angle):
I don't think you understand.
Your whole post is basically just saying "these are the rules".
Yes, those are the rules. But those rules can be illegal.
Just saying "yep. These are the rules" is a vacuous statement that is unrelated to the crux of the argument, which is that those rules can be illegal and the government can force Apple or Google to change them.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#250For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if som…
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!
> 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!
Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.
E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.