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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#391

Post by wraptile »

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.

> no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful?

Yes. Why are we so ok on giving up our rights like this? "no company is allowed to inside trade/use slaves/have a monopoly" - yes!

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#392

Post by MBCook »

clhodapp wrote: post #168
scarface_74 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic already lost the trial in the Apple case. Courts in the US and other countries have treated Google differently as an OS provider to OEMs than Apple as a single vendor. Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?

Why shouldn't they? I know for sure that if it were possible to sideload software onto my Switch or PS5, that would definitely benefit me as a consumer. The fact that I have a reasonably powerful computer attached to my TV but can't install software on it without convincing Sony to sell me a janky dev kit for way too much money is just wasteful. Just about the only objection I can imagine is "piracy", but the locked-…

But that’s not something you get through a jury. There are no laws saying that’s necessary.

You need a new law to say that.

Google got in trouble for saying that you could do something and then secretly undermining it. Whether or not third-party app stores were allowed on devices was not the core issue.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#393

Post by xwolfi »

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…

Be mindful that in practice there is very little difference between civil and common law systems: the ceremonies appear different but the spirit is the same: past decisions heavily impact future decisions since that's the only way to keep things fair, society changes decisions in a softly evolving jurisprudence in both systems, juries are consulted but not all powerful since they can be driven by revenge sentiment etc.

Like you I was born and raised in civil law (France) and now have been living for 10 years in common law (Hong Kong), and the difference is almost invisible: Judges obey parliamentary decisions in both, whether you call that laws or constitutional amendment or even political pressure. They also ensure consistency of decision when needed but are ready to launch a little revolution if they feel society has changed (gay marriage in Hong Kong is in the air, for instance)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#394

Post by erichocean »

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…

> Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.

Two markets ARE at play for consumers: mobile phone hardware (with OS) and mobile app stores/apps. Apple is using it's monopoly in the former to create/enforce a monopoly in the latter.

You can tell there are two separate markets because you, the consumer, make (at least) two separate purchases to participate.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#395

Post by MBCook »

ethbr1 wrote: post #137
raincole wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The would be the end of consoles. At this point consoles have very few advantages to PC. If they got "opened up" it would be zero.

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

You’re right. I can’t wait until I can’t play games on my PlayStation because I forgot to install audio driver update 2.367 which conflicts with rendering update 7.829.

That will be a much better experience for me as a consumer.

There is no need to open up consoles. You don’t have to buy them. The PC is incredibly healthy as a gaming platform.

Please let people like me who want to gaming appliance have it without screwing it up.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#396

Post by dragonwriter »

johndhi wrote: post #321

Couple of thoughts for HN as a lawyer: 1. The fact that Google lost here doesn't bind or affect apple. Jury verdicts aren't binding on any party other than those in the lawsuit. Apple may or may not be found to violate the law in a separate case. 2. Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership. I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US…

> Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership.

Its not relevant to the issues in the cases they have been involved in over app stores.

> I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US tech.

"The government" (presumably, here, you mean the executive branch?) can't veto a court ruling on the premise that the law should have been different then it was when the events actually happened and the case was heard.

There are avenues for dealing with security and other risks from foreign ownership, but they are entirely separate from the legal issues in Epic v. Apple and Epic v. Google.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#398

Post by adam_arthur »

scarface_74 wrote: post #91
reilly3000 wrote: post #50

Assuming this ruling stands, and the pattern is extended to Apple as well, what does a multi-app-store world look like? How does one "install" a new app store, what sort of permissions does it get? Who can start a new app store? What risks does a user accept when they do business with a 3rd party store? I for one would welcome a mobile store from Valve, Epic etc, especially if I could have my purchases work on multip…

Epic already lost the trial in the Apple case. Courts in the US and other countries have treated Google differently as an OS provider to OEMs than Apple as a single vendor. Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms?

Epic vs Apple is not over, it's being appealed to the US Supreme Court. And this Google case is likely to end up there as well.

I suspect they'll end up ruling in favor of Epic, in some limited fashion. But let's see!

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#399

Post by MBCook »

threeseed wrote: post #102
reilly3000 wrote: post #50

Assuming this ruling stands, and the pattern is extended to Apple as well, what does a multi-app-store world look like? How does one "install" a new app store, what sort of permissions does it get? Who can start a new app store? What risks does a user accept when they do business with a 3rd party store? I for one would welcome a mobile store from Valve, Epic etc, especially if I could have my purchases work on multip…

Honestly not much different to today. a) Apple, Google etc could just refuse to host any apps that are being sold on other stores. This sort of exclusivity is common place and legal. b) Larger developers who have their own agendas like Epic and their metaverse will run their own stores. c) Everyone else will stay with Apple/Google. The costs of running a third party store are significant and ultimately developers or…

For all Epic’s talk, and as much as people support third-party App Store, they only really care about their third-party App Store.

They just want to get to be the middleman instead of Apple/Google.

This seems like an enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing… be very careful supporting them. They’re not a paragon of virtue.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#400

Post by kyruzic »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #339
kyruzic wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two possible decisions the jury could make, and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. Obviously not perfect but a lot better than you describe.

> and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. No, it's not. It's chosen at random, and they have a chance to rule out people they think would be biased - and you can't just toss anyone for any reason. It's not like Google can toss anyone they see playing a game or using an iPhone or something. And it's definitely not like Google gets to pick 6…

I didn't say they were individually selected and yes they can just throw out a certain number of potential jurors without any reason.

Maybe I worded my comment poorly but the point still stands.

Post reply on HN