411–420 of 1001 posts
I suggest that this actually makes Sweeney _more_ historically influential than Carmack. They both have remarkably similar origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is t…
> ... anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
> I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple "The court system" is not a collective entity with a shared set of thoughts. Different judges, different arguments, in one case (but not the other) a jury, these things make a difference. The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual tri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.
How do I develop a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use without interacting with Apple?
Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already.
Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone.
You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree to their terms. Even if you make a phone that only works on the AT&T network, you still need to agree to their terms.
You can't sell in Target or Walmart or Costco or even Amazon just because you want to. Oh and you may be quite disappointed to discover many of them take >30% cut too.
Apple thinks of the iOS App Store as another storefront, and you need their permission to put your product on their "shelves". The courts agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled
The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. Google opens itself up to scrutiny because they both offer the ability to compete but then actively use their influence to try to stop that competition.
They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.
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!
Or would that be illegal since it was originally open?
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…
>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.
Epic Games v Google is going to appellate now, though, isn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like Epic cut with console makers for co-marketing dollars or like every company does with large customers? I’ve got news for you - AWS also cut special deals with AWS, Spotify with GCP and OpenAI with Azure. Do you really think large comoanirs get the same deals as the creator of random Indy app maker?
What are you even talking about and how is it relevant to what I'm asking? You seem to be leaping to Apple's defense as if you're taking a bullet for them but it isn't really necessary here.
There has never been a law that a company has to make the same deals with everyone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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%.