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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#541

Post by donedeals »

adam_arthur wrote: post #398
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?

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!

Highly doubt the conservative court rules against an American company in favor or a foreign owned entity.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#542

Post by slimsag »

StressedDev wrote: post #435
slimsag wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't matter, I ask because the industry will (and is actively) trending towards this. It won't be Microsoft, it'll be whoever replaces Microsoft in the long term. My question remains: what will happen in that case and what do we want to happen?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#543

Post by talentedcoin »

saghm wrote: post #501
galaxyLogic wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I never understood is how Republicans can be for one type of abortion say before 6 weeks but not for 15 weeks? What is their rationale? If Bible says that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then how can they allow abortion at 6 weeks and vote for that?

The bible doesn't say anything at all about abortion. It wouldn't matter if it did though, because they have no problem ignoring plenty of things that actually are in it when it would conflict with political success.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” — Jeremiah 1:5

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#544

Post by haswell »

whatshisface wrote: post #526
StewardMcOy wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tangent within a tangent, but it's basically a political strategy. Abortion bans are deeply unpopular, even in many Republican-majority states. By framing it "after six weeks", they're attempting to project the image that they're the reasonable ones. After all, women would have had six whole weeks to make up their mind! And it will allow an escape hatch for women in rape or incest situations. As a practical…

Why are politicians trying to pass a law that is, "deeply unpopular?" Do they want to lose elections, or something?

The religious beliefs that underlie these laws are the driving force. The people who hold these beliefs see the political system as a means to an end, and future losses do not matter if the goal is reached.

I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the mindset up close, and it’s very worrisome.

Do think it’s ultimately short sighted because of the likely pendulum swing. But there is certainly a lot of damage to be done before that happens.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#545

Post by LoganDark »

bogwog wrote: post #505
harrygeez wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has. That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

Specifically GMS runs as a "privileged app" (that's what priv-apps stands for) which can declare access to permissions in the manifest that non-privileged apps can't even ask for.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#546

Post by bofaGuy »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43
kulahan wrote: post #23

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!

I think the difference here is that Apple locks things down on Apple hardware running Apple software.

On the other hand, Google is trying to manipulate the market to gain an advantage over competitors on non Google hardware running Google software.

On the Apple side of things, the full vertical is Apple. That is not the case for Google.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#547

Post by _thisdot »

skydhash wrote: post #447
Andrex wrote: post #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.…

You're missing: Apple: iOS only on iPhone. No way to get one without the other. Google: Android is open source and everyone can build their own hardware. Play Store is optional for manufacturers.

So Google is free to block third party App Stores on a Pixel?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#548

Post by etchalon »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #492
etchalon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're dealing with the same laws, but not the same evidence. There wasn't much evidence in the Apple case that Apple was explicitly taking action to disadvantage or harm third-parties, and there was even less evidence that Apple utilized their economic power to ensure their dominance. If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. The evidence in Google's ca…

>If anything, the evidence in the Apple case showed that Apple treated all developers with relative parity. Basically as long as you strip away your users rights equally, you're fine. Not exactly great news for future tech...

Both cases were about anti-competitive behavior, not user's rights.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#550

Post by croes »

colechristensen wrote: post #297
rtpg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple offers the same kinds of deals (see Netflix discussions) though there the rationales are different, which leads to sweatier "Apple has to offer deals because their value add is so bad, and having alternative app stores would help"-style arguments... I don't really know of a good legal argument there.

Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though? Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition. Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash? These are just different issues.

>Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though?

Towards other streaming services?

Yes.

Post reply on HN