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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#311

Post by Dylan16807 »

stephenr wrote: post #209
jwells89 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I’m reading it is that your platform needs to be totally open, desktop-OS-style, or manufactured as a single piece iOS/console style. Anything between those two is where the trouble comes in.

Isn't this just as simple as: if you claim to be open/allow something (alternative stores) you can't then do back room deals to prevent competition with them. As someone else said: Google wants to make big loud claims about android being "open" but also wants to prevent anyone from competing with them.

But most people don't care much about those claims. If the end result is "Google stops claiming to be open", that's a terrible outcome.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#312

Post by lolinder »

LordKeren wrote: post #298
Dylan16807 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP is saying they could also have avoided this outcome by not allowing competition at all. That's the route that Apple took and Apple won their case against Epic.

Google's plan was to maintain a de facto monopoly on app stores while technically allowing competition. Apple's was to just come out and say that they were the only authorized app store and therefore they can't be anti-competitive because there exists no market for iOS app stores.

Google is probably wishing they had taken that route now.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#314

Post by frognumber »

hackernewds wrote: post #267

I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple

"The same against Apple" is very broad so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Apple is presently less evil than Google.

* Google started out pure good and turned pure evil.

* Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy.

* Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there.

"Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices, anti-repair, government corruption. They do some very good things with privacy, security, long-term support, and similar.

If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple), courts are random. Very random. Legal processes have little grounding in any sort of objective anything, and kind of resemble a chaotic die roll.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#315

Post by amf12 »

lijok wrote: post #61
DeIlliad wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We learned in the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple cut sweetheart deals with Netflix and other companies as well. Am I missing how this is different?

Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores

But, that's a false premise. Apple doesn't allow competing app stores.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#316

Post by Dylan16807 »

LordKeren wrote: post #298
Dylan16807 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are multiple ways to avoid an outcome.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#317

Post by jmoak3 »

rkagerer wrote: post #174
LordKeren wrote: post #2

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. Th…

Finally. I'm glad this caught up to them. I used to have a lot of warm fuzzies for Google, but they've become downright despicable in so many respects. The app store has leaned toward unfair for publishers (and users) for years, I hope something good comes of this.

Like I've been saying. We're not incentivizing the stewardship of open platforms. Apple will die before they open their garden.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596

I don't want to be pithy and low-effort here. I'm confused on why Google lost while Apple won.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#318

Post by Drew_ »

lijok wrote: post #61
DeIlliad wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We learned in the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple cut sweetheart deals with Netflix and other companies as well. Am I missing how this is different?

Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores

However, Apple's deals were for the purpose of undermining competing payment systems.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#319

Post by rtpg »

colechristensen wrote: post #297
rtpg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree the issues are different! I do believe there’s a subtle argument to be made about how Apple can use its customer base to “pick winners” (combo of huge user base + App Store being the only entry point), on top of things like offering sweetheart deals to certain apps. Meta being allowed to get away with so much “against the App Store rules” stuff is legit IMO.

Anticompetitive behavior can be downstream of stuff like this, even if Apple isn’t actively quashing something but merely making it way easier for certain places to absorb the costs (especially if the deal was only offered to Netflix but not to other platforms).

Its not a ironclad argument by any means but its something

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#320

Post by threeseed »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #286
threeseed wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but they make a lot of money through licensing and Nintendo Store sales. That would all disappear if you could side-load any content.

Does "side-load any content" mean unlimited piracy? Otherwise I don't understand your argument at all. But adding side-loading does not enable unlimited piracy.

Piracy isn't the issue here.

It's the fact that Nintendo, Sony etc wouldn't be able to enforce any licensing revenue since users could just install any game directly.

For Nintendo it would decimate the company since it's their primary revenue stream.

Post reply on HN