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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#421

Post by __loam »

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…

"Monopoly is actually pretty cool" is definitely a new one but I guess it's par for the course on this site.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#423

Post by favorited »

LegitShady wrote: post #165
favorited wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cases in US district courts don't create binding precedent.

but the appeals might?

An appellate ruling would precedential within that court's circuit, yes. One of the most common reasons that SCOTUS grants cert is when there is a "circuit split," where multiple appellate court circuits have decided differently on the same legal issue.

All this is beside the point, because if Epic wants to overturn the ruling in Epic v. Apple, they would (and have) appeal that case. These 2 cases are not the same, and it's entirely possible they end up winning one and losing the other.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#424

Post by scq »

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…

Is it worth it to pay 30% more for everything in order to have that convenience?

Even if you think it is, other people might disagree. Apple prevents app creators from even mentioning that you can purchase content or subscriptions in a web browser instead.

I just want to be able to use the hardware I already paid for without Apple taking a cut of everything I do on it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#425

Post by harrygeez »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #97
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though

I don't fully understand. Are these functionalities baked into Android that only allow Play Store to use it?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#426

Post by adamwk »

madeofpalk wrote: post #252
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.

Details on some of these came through in the Epic v Apple case, but they were very light https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli... Google just has more types of companies in the ecosystem to make deals with. Apple’s iOS OEM deals can’t be found anticompetitive because they don’t have those deals to begin with.

It’s interesting that none of the desperate arrangements were lower fees; the closest being ability to upsell preexisting subscribers (off apples platform)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#427

Post by cma »

scarface_74 wrote: post #147
cma wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A teaser rate? Good luck getting publisher or VC funding for something that is a bet on you going big. They will discount projections by the full 30.

Yes I’m sure you could get VC funding by selling an app on the App Store.

On top of the other replies, the million threshold impacts smaller scale investment than VC as well.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#428

Post by smoldesu »

spiderice wrote: post #206
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I develop a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use without interacting with Apple?

Figure it out lol. That’s what Apple had to do. Why are you expecting a free pass to do what took them decades?

Because decades ago, "figuring it out" entailed visiting a website and downloading a software installer. Why is Apple expecting everyone to forget about that and pay them the difference instead?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#429

Post by nvy »

pankajdoharey wrote: post #413
dragonwriter wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?

They do, but not proactively. You have to bring a case before the court for the precedent to get considered.

Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#430

Post by scarface_74 »

inkysigma wrote: post #331
scarface_74 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a coworker say that he surreptitiously installed an app on his son’s phone that allowed him to see everything his son was doing remotely and listen in to his son’s conversations. He showed it to us in action.

It's a difficult security model when the threat actor is a parent who presumably has access to the device and in an unlocked state along with permissions to install anything from anywhere. It's not like the threat actor realistically couldn't (with some effort) see everything the child was doing already just by asking so I don't really see this as a very good threat model. Sure, Apple might prevent you from installin…

It’s not a zero day. It’s insecure by design. There is a huge difference between parental control and snooping.

You really think you are going to ask a child what are they doing every second and what they talked about and they are going to tell the truth?

What’s stopping someone also from surreptitiously installing the same snooping software on another adult’s phone?

It’s not less clear. There is no reason to allow this type of software to be installed on a phone without a clear indication that it is on there.

Post reply on HN