Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

theverge.com

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#401
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.

Not really. At least Windows Mobile and PalmOS let you install anything very easily. It was just difficult initially finding apps.

It was POSSIBLE. Was it easy enough for the average user?

I saw plenty of people who never installed anything because it was PITA.

There’s a reason the App Store revolutionized things.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#402

Tell me if I'm mistaken but Epic lost against Apple that has a completely closed iPhone ecosystem but won against Google that has a relatively open ecosystem ?

Yes, sounds paradoxical to me as well, but given that a jury was involved, some degree of inconsistency is to be expected

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#403
Do I have this straight?

Apple: no sideloading

Google: yes sideloading

Apple: no alternate app stores

Google: OS-native APIs for facilitating third-party app stores

Apple: no monopoly

Google: yes monopoly

Just wondering if I have this straight.

Edit-

> And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

Oh, OK.

Google will take this to SCOTUS, and their record there (The Author's Guild, Oracle) is pretty good. This is far from over.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#404

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...

Yes because if you could sell on your own website I’m sure you would make gazillions.. And since plenty of companies do have viable businesses on the App Store, doesn’t that say more about your business idea than anything else?

There's plenty of software that straight-up doesn't ship on the App Store. One could even argue that the Mac fosters it's own class of unique software since the App Store tithe is optional. I don't think Pro Tools or Steam would get Mac ports if Apple enforced the App Store limitations on their entire platform. It's trivial to imagine businesses that become viable without strict vendor pricing control.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#405
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which is not something Apple "needed" to do because they didn't allow competition in the iOS phone manufacturing business.

Google didn’t need to pay these companies either. They chose to do it so they could keep their play store monopoly. And they may have just burning billions in profits because of it

Right, which is why I put the term in quotes. But Apple got that for free, since they didn't open up manufacturing.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter for US legal system how their marketing call that. It's either legal or not.

Presumably there was a practical side to the difference in approach beyond marketing.

Right. Apple never undermined any competitive App Store, they just didn’t allow them.

That is legal according to the ruling on the Epic vs Apple trial.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#407

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

HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.

Apple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#408

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,…

PageRank was at least partially funded by the intelligence community via the MDDS program. "Started out pure good" is revisionist. They definitely started out as the darlings of the tech world, but "don't be evil" was always ironic.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#409

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,…

What government corruption are you talking about?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#410
post #393
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 et…

Yes, ultimately our morals, culture, and sense of justice gets enshrined in law. But I did feel a big difference between living in a common law country and a civil law one.

There was a sense in business circles in the latter that what is not legally a crime, one cannot be punished for. So there was a bit of a drive to exploit that for profit. If something becomes forbidden by law, it’s “verboten”. It cannot take place, no matter how ethical it might be.

It’s much less clear in common law countries, where you could be tried and be unable to defend yourself for immoral things. Or you could break the laws but have such a strong moral argument for it, it is possible to defend. So generally, people and business are more considerate of each other, less stone cold bureaucratic. But that invites ambiguity in the legal process, even if the ultimate forces shaping it are similar to civil law. And you can get different outcomes in similar cases, like Epic Games v Apple and Epic Games v Google. These cases started out very similarly.

In civil law countries, if something was prohibited by a code, then it would be penalized, there wouldn’t be much debate in the courts. I think this is why the EU keeps fining these large tech companies all the time, it’s like a non-event, whereas it’s much more difficult in the us.

That is what I observed. Of course, what you say is also true.

Post reply on HN