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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#271

Post by makeitdouble »

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…

I'm curious, do you have an Amazon subscription or any of the dozens of other major subscriptions that didn't go the AppStore route because of Apple' policies ?

I'm not sure at any point I experienced a "cancel all my subscriptions" in a single place, even as I was neck deep in the Apple ecosystem.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#272

Post by Wowfunhappy »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #262
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #140

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. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.

> However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house. Consumers bought this house with their eyes wide open knowing that they can only access one supermarket.

I'd challenge you on that. I think 95%+ of iPhone buyers have no idea that Apple places restrictions on what they are allowed to install.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#273

Post by lvzw »

shadowgovt wrote: post #199

I still don't know how the jury squares the circle on Play Store being a monopoly when F-Droid is right there... But the thing about juries is they don't have to. Good news for Epic.

A company need not have 100% market share to have monopoly power in a market.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#274

Post by Dylan16807 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #236
madeofpalk wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean just like Epic got special marketing deals from console manufacturers?

Epic shouldn't get special pricing either. Even Epic will say that.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#275

Post by wdwind »

threeseed wrote: post #190
ethbr1 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just look a lot more like a standardized PC. Which they they probably should by this point.

Sure. But there would be zero incentive for Sony, Nintendo etc to build one. Because Acer, Asus etc could simply come along and undercut them on price and still have access to the exact same game catalog. And then they would each decide to add more proprietary features or add more performance. And so you've just recreated the PC gaming market again.

> And so you've just recreated the PC gaming market again.

What's the issue with that?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#276

Post by hackernewds »

LordKeren wrote: post #208
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?

No, this was not a court case about if Google has a phone OS monopoly. This was about if Google has a monopoly within the android ecosystem when it comes to app distribution. The jury ruled that they have a monopoly within android, and that they used this monopoly to stifle competition. They cited that Google used its influence as the makers of android to get phone manufacturers to not preinstall third party app stor…

um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#277

Post by Wowfunhappy »

nostrebored wrote: post #257
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #140

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. 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?

> 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.

I don't think there's too little demand, I think there's too much profit incentive in the other direction.

Only a tiny number of companies on earth have the resources to build a successful mobile platform. If you are lucky enough to be one of those companies, you're not going to leave money on the table.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#278

Post by HDThoreaun »

Someone wrote: post #255
HDThoreaun wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, they are hurting consumers by banning competing app stores. Just because they offer an acceptable product doesnt mean they can hamstring competitors. There is a right to be allowed to compete.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#279

Post by lolinder »

summerlight wrote: post #198

Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU is giving their hands to do all the jobs necessary for the Apple's case. Those two stores will remain dominant (>95% share) for a foreseeable future, but at least customers will have a choice. Now I wonder what if Google/Apple decided to decrease their cut to a more reasonable level, around 10~15%? App store/Play store…

> Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU

It remains to be seen whether Apple will comply with EU rules outside of the EU. If not, Epic isn't getting their way, because EU revenue alone isn't going to be enough.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#280

Post by fnordpiglet »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
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!

> 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…

100% correct. I was involved in the Netscape Microsoft anti trust case and this is specifically the finding that led to their loss (way too late for us)
Post reply on HN