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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#431

Post by scarface_74 »

S201 wrote: post #244
scarface_74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and they get viruses, malware, and ransomware from doing so. My mom searched for a printer driver and ended up installing some third party crap wars on her computer

And malware has never existed in the Google Play store, right? The point is that if you are the owner of the device you get to choose what to do with it, not Google. If the trade off for that freedom is an increased risk of malware then so be it. The people that want to only use the Google Play store as their source of software are free to do so, that's the beauty of your device being /your/ device.

And this is why people on HN make horrible product designers

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#432

Post by devit »

SushiHippie wrote: post #100
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.

What does google play store have compared to third party stores?

It runs as a privileged app.

It uses that to install new applications and update applications installed by other app stores without the OS-level confirmation, probably can't be uninstalled on most Android OSes and perhaps some other things.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#433

Post by staticautomatic »

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 ?

I don’t think this deserves t be downvoted. It’s just a misunderstanding. What you’re thinking of is a different concept in the US legal system called res judicata or issue preclusion.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#434

Post by zappb »

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 ?

District courts don’t set precedent; appellate and supreme courts do.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#435

Post by StressedDev »

slimsag wrote: post #226
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's calle…

If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?

They are never going to do this.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#436

Post by CobrastanJorji »

hipadev23 wrote: post #309
hackernewds wrote: post #267

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.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I want to discuss how deviously literal the Supreme Court decided to be in order to avoid letting anyone establish any precedent about what was or wasn't a legal abortion.

The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140)

The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."

In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk).

Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#437

Post by lern_too_spel »

MBCook wrote: post #344
hackernewds wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple made deals to set the default search engine and the default maps app, and rejected other app stores. As bad as Google is, Apple is even worse, setting worse terms for deals and rejecting other deals outright to favor their own products.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#438

Post by dragonwriter »

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 ?

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

I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#439

Post by skydhash »

cyberax wrote: post #415
musictubes wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.

> They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.

They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware.

But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#440

Post by cma »

astrange wrote: post #261
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.

How many business ideas does that guy have that make more than $1 million a year but would also be unprofitable after 30% app store fees?

It's more a portfolio of companies that many make less, but a few hits cover the investment in the rest (the standard publishing and tech investing story). If the hits are going to take a 18% rev loss compared to say Epic's 12% store, then that's 18% less funding for the rest if things are invested efficiently/predicted well for the portfolio.
Post reply on HN