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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#251

Post by dns_snek »

JieJie wrote: post #239
cyberax wrote: post #188

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. 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.

You could, however, give as much of the product away as you can for free (less $100 a year for developer account) and then Apple is basically paying you to distribute it on their platform. That's definitely not the mafia. If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app. You…

I'm not up to date on Apple's current rules, but for years they have strictly forbidden you from directing users to your website to complete a purchase. You weren't even allowed to mention any other payment options in the app.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#252

Post by madeofpalk »

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.

Details on some of these came through in the Epic v Apple case, but they were very light https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli...

Google just has more types of companies in the ecosystem to make deals with. Apple’s iOS OEM deals can’t be found anticompetitive because they don’t have those deals to begin with.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#253

Post by S201 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #107
andersa wrote: post #92

Absolutely fantastic news. Now extend it to Apple.

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

Yes. If I bought and paid for something I own it and should be able to run whatever software I want on it. Anything less makes it not my device anymore.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#254

Post by [deleted] »

EA-3167 wrote: post #80
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#255

Post by Someone »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #186
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (b…

Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.

Hurting consumers? Apps are dirt cheap.

If anything, they’re hurting developers, but even that may be hard to argue. Developers still flock to the platform.

Even if those developers can’t make a living doing that (and many likely can’t), that’s not an argument for Apple’s fee being too high. There’s no right to be able to make a living in the way you want.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#256

Post by echelon »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43
kulahan wrote: post #23

For 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!

Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless.

Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them.

  - Tax 30%
  - Control when and how software can be deployed
  - Can pull software or deny updates
  - Prevent web downloads (Apple)
  - Sell ads on top of your app name or brand
  - Scare / confuse users about web downloads or app installs (Google)
  - Control the payment rails 
  - Enforce using their identity and customer management (Apple)
  - Enforce using their payment rails (Apple) 
  - Becoming the de-facto POS payment methods (for even more taxation) 
  - Partnering with governments to be identity providers
  - Default search provider
  - Default browser
  - Prevent other browser runtimes (Apple)
  - Prevent browser tech from being comparable to native app installs (mostly Apple)
  - Unfriendly to repairs
  - Unfriendly to third party components (Apple) 
  - Battery not replaceable 
  - Unofficial pieces break core features due to crytographic signing (Apple) 
  - Updates obsolete old hardware 
  - Green bubbles (Apple) 
  - Tactics to cause FOMO in children (Apple)
  - Growth into media (movie studios, etc.) to keep eyeballs on their platforms (Apple) 
  - Growth into music to keep eyeballs on their platforms
There are no other companies in the world with this level of control over such an important, cross-cutting, cross-functional essential item.

If we compared the situation to auto manufacturers, there would be only two providers, you could only fuel at their gas stations, they'd charge businesses every time you visit, they'd display ads constantly, and you'd be unable to repair them without going to the provider.

There need to be more than two providers. And if we can't get more than two providers, then most of these unfair advantages need to be rolled back by regulators.

This is horrific.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#257

Post by nostrebored »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #140
EA-3167 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not s…

> I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.

And supermarkets have no obligation to build expressways to their competitors!

We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand.

As a consumer, why should I care? As a company, unless I’m building my own walled garden for company phones, why should I care? What’s the market here?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#258

Post by bg24 »

EA-3167 wrote: post #80
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

Having a walled garden is fine. I use iPhone and apple products from day 1. That said, charging 30% of subscription in the App Store seems ridiculously high if you put yourself in the 3rd party vendor place.

For comparison, Amazon charges 15%. AWS marketplace charges <10%.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#259

Post by nostrebored »

cyberax wrote: post #182
EA-3167 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not s…

> I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden Apple doesn't have multiple competing stores. It has ONE store. And if you are a software vendor that makes mobile apps, you HAVE to support Apple or you will go out of business.

Because consumers value the Apple ecosystem and UX, both of which you can take advantage of as a developer. What is the problem?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#260

Post by Jensson »

Spivak wrote: post #178
HDThoreaun wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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

No, the opposite, it is evidence that Apple is a monopoly, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with taking 30% with no repercussions. It should have driven their profits to 0 in the appstore market since why would users pay such a massive markup for everything? But it didn't due to their anti-competitive measures.

> A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero

No, that isn't how it works, they weren't anti competitive towards other apps, just towards other app stores. Their massive tax on those apps is the result, you can still be profitable even with a massive tax.

Post reply on HN