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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#291

Post by Dylan16807 »

LordKeren wrote: post #245
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.

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

But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#292

Post by lolinder »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #183
dvngnt_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is huge! > I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. > Might be time to revisit them... name 3?

Anywhere where you exist on top of someone else's service is basically killed by a 30% margin. To use an example I worked on a while back, dynamic Minecraft server hosting: Taking advantage of the fact that most small servers need much less than 100% uptime, you realize that if you dynamically spin up and down these servers, you can offer substantially better use-based pricing. You're basically an AWS reseller in thi…

What you're describing is a service that has an accompanying app. In those cases, you can just take the Netflix route and not offer the subscription on the app at all (only through the website), and voila, no 30% charge. Given how little of the value proposition for your service lives in the app itself, neither app store is going to have a problem with that plan.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#294

Post by lcw »

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…

I mean sure, but in a practical sense the company becoming the only seller of gasoline happened through anti-competitive behavior and not just because they have a superior gasoline product. I think that two app stores controlling 100% of distribution and setting their rates similarly feels pretty anti-competitive.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#295

Post by [deleted] »

Jensson wrote: post #260
Spivak wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did…

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#297

Post by colechristensen »

rtpg wrote: post #104
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!

Apple offers the same kinds of deals (see Netflix discussions) though there the rationales are different, which leads to sweatier "Apple has to offer deals because their value add is so bad, and having alternative app stores would help"-style arguments... I don't really know of a good legal argument there.

Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though?

Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition.

Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash?

These are just different issues.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#298

Post by LordKeren »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #291
LordKeren wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.

No, they could have avoided this outcome by not paying other companies to not compete with Google play. They paid off phone manufacturers like Motorola to not preinstall third party app stores and software companies like Riot Games to not produce third party app stores.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#299

Post by xethos »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #97
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though

By that measure, F-Droid is very close in that both have the majority of apps some people use (Aurora for you, F-Droid for me).

Neither can compete with the Play store though, as only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background without user interaction (without root). For that matter, only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#300

Post by cyberax »

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…

> 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

Basically, you can't make money. Duh. You can't even place a link for a third-party payment system (the case to allow that is on its way to SCOTUS).

Apple is a mafia.

Post reply on HN