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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#341

Post by modeless »

stephenr wrote: post #247
modeless wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that what Apple did is as bad or worse from the perspective of promoting competition in healthy markets, but it's more difficult to prove and quantify the harm, so it doesn't get punished.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#342

Post by giblfiz »

nojvek wrote: post #231

I wonder if Lina Khan will be able to finally get her anti-trust case through against Google. It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech, same with Microsoft on the Blizzard acquisition. Almost if the Judges are scared of Big Tech but the Jury composed of lay people see the monopoly for what it is.

>It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech

My thought is that the judges are likely staying with the "letter of the law" which is what Big Tech (Big anything really) hires all of their lawyers to make sure that they technically stay within, while flagrantly violating the spirit of the law in a way that helps the business model.

The Jury is more prone to look at the spirit of the law.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#343

Post by lannisterstark »

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 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.

You could STILL do that if that does happen on Apple. No one forces you. It just gives people more choices. Choices are good.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#344

Post by MBCook »

hackernewds wrote: post #270
jonbell wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.

or perhaps Apple just had a stronger policy to not create documentation around these

I mean a lot of it just doesn’t apply. Google was caught paying off Samsung to encourage them not to put alternate app stores on their devices. Squashing competition where it should exist.

Apple makes the devices, so they aren’t making others squash competition. They’re exactly what they say.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#345

Post by inkysigma »

gwbas1c wrote: post #308
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 that this happens to Apple eventually too. It's a somewhat different situation with Apple. You can't buy iOS on a non-Apple phone; and a quick Google search has the iPhone at about 22% of the market.

In the US, where the case was decided, it's about 50%.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#346

Post by scythe »

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!

IANAL, but it's my understanding that courts like to stick to what they know. Apple's arguments about iOS security are rooted in abstruse technical concepts that a judge probably prefers to avoid ruling on directly, while Google's backroom wheeling and dealing is the kind of conventional skulduggery that is immediately recognized as an offense.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#347

Post by [deleted] »

lolinder wrote: post #279
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.

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#349

Post by MBCook »

jongjong wrote: post #310
Spivak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.

The message I got is that everything is corrupt. I hope Google execs and shareholders also got that message. Now finally some big guys are getting a sense of the issue with centralization. There can only be one government-ordained winner and it's not the one who plays fair and square who wins. It's usually the biggest political manipulator. Google is in a weak position now due to the perceived risk of AI disrupting i…

Are you suggesting that Google lost this lawsuit because the government decided they don’t matter anymore because they don’t have good enough AI on the market?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#350

Post by Kranar »

clnq wrote: post #328
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?

Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it migh…

>The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent.

Trial courts don't set precedent, only an appellate court or higher can set a precedent, and that precedent is only binding on lower courts.

Since trial courts are the lowest courts, their decisions are not binding on any future trial and as a general matter do not set any kind of precedent.

Post reply on HN