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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#571

Post by TheCleric »

croes wrote: post #550
colechristensen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Considering Apple has its own streaming service, this may in fact be the opposite of monopolistic.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#572

Post by blackguardx »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> 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! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder…

What about this landmark case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#573

Post by handoflixue »

optimusPrimal wrote: post #418

Not a fan of either, but I fail to see how it is a monopoly. Epic has the money to make their own app store as seen by their PC games one. They could perfectly well just make their own store regardless of Google. This fact alone makes it not a monopoly. Multiply that by how many million other business can put up servers and start an app store (to crash and fail - but besides the point), and by simple logic you prove…

> This fact alone makes it not a monopoly.

"The hypothetical possibility of competition" is definitely not enough to conclude that something is not a monopoly in any legal sense. A monopoly doesn't require 100% control of the market, nor is owning 100% of a market illegal.

> by simple logic you prove that Google does not impede competition

Again, "the hypothetical possibility of competition" does not mean Google isn't impeding things. In fact, the case established quite the opposite:

---

Unlawful Restraint of Trade (Sherman Act Section 1 and California State Law) Question No. 6:

Did Epic prove, by a preponderance of the evidence and in accordance with the instructions given to you, that Google entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in a relevant antitrust market?

Jury answered: YES

Question No. 7:

If you answered “yes” to Question 6, which of these agreements did you find to be unreasonable restraint(s) of trade in accordance with the instructions given to you?

x DDA agreements

x Agreements with Google’s alleged competitors or potential competitors under Project Hug or Games Velocity Program

x Agreements with OEMs that sell mobile devices (including MADA and RSA agreements)

Jury answered: ALL OF THE ABOVE

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#574

Post by capital_guy »

nojvek wrote: post #231

I wonder if Lina Khan will be able to finally get her anti-trust case through against Google. It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech, same with Microsoft on the Blizzard acquisition. Almost if the Judges are scared of Big Tech but the Jury composed of lay people see the monopoly for what it is.

I don’t think that it’s that judges are scared of big tech. I think the antitrust teachings from the 80s and 90s were Reagan (Bork) style philosophies which have since become outdated. But federal judges are often older folks and probably lean on their now-outdated “law and economics” theory of antitrust

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#575

Post by Psychotherapist »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #563
xethos wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that measure, F-Droid is very close in that both have the majority of apps some people use (Aurora for you, F-Droid for me). Neither can compete with the Play store though, as only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background without user interaction (without root). For that matter, only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can un install apps from user's devices with no in…

>only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction. That sounds horrible. Why can a store decide to delete an app with no prior notice? But it does seem Google has given more freedom to other apps to install apps. I guess it comes down to if that's still too many clicks or too fear mongering to count as "competitive".

In my experience Google Play Protect can be disabled, and shows a warning an app might be "Harmful" and sometimes prompts to Uninstall or Ignore the warning, afaik no unprompted uninstalls

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#576

Post by fingerlocks »

croes wrote: post #550
colechristensen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s very likely they have special deals too.

Without saying too much, I have personally witnessed such a deal at company with a measly 2-3 million app downloads. We had a physical product in the Apple Store that was doing very well. Our sales guy somehow negotiated lower IAP fees in exchange for higher cut or exclusivity of our retail product. Everything is negotiable if you have leverage.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#577

Post by tw04 »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> 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! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder…

>E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.

I mean, it's far more than that. Most importantly:

>Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

While IANAL - even as a plebe I can pretty easily tie refusing to allow third party app stores to both refusing to supply an essential facility, and product tying.

Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? That's 100% product tying. It would be one thing if third parties just had no interest in supplying an alternative app store. It's another thing entirely to lock them out via your monopoly on the ecosystem.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#578

Post by staticautomatic »

bee_rider wrote: post #462
staticautomatic wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does deserve to be downvoted, it seems to ignore the second paragraph of the post it responds to. That’s annoying.

I don’t think the parent is particularly clear about what it’s referring to or why the Apple decision would be binding. It just looks like two ships passing in the night over precedent vs estoppel.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#579

Post by stephenr »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #488
modeless wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that what Apple did is as bad or worse from the perspective of promoting competition in healthy markets, but it's more difficult to prove and quantify the harm, so it doesn't get punished.

On one of the platforms it was possible for epic to make a third party app store, and on another it wasn't. That alone should tell any sane person which platform was 'worse'. It's absolutely wild and a failing of our legal system somewhere that the company with the worst effect actually won their own case.

One company was honest about what their platform allows and disallows. You might not like how they choose to run it, but they did what they said.

Another company made claims about their platform (both to end users and to business partners) being "open" and then acted directly counter to those claims, in efforts to prevent competition.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#580

Post by kelnos »

hackernewds wrote: post #276
LordKeren wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this was not a court case about if Google has a phone OS monopoly. This was about if Google has a monopoly within the android ecosystem when it comes to app distribution. The jury ruled that they have a monopoly within android, and that they used this monopoly to stifle competition. They cited that Google used its influence as the makers of android to get phone manufacturers to not preinstall third party app stor…

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

I agree that Apple does have that monopoly. I guess the difference is that Google actually does technically allow third-party app stores, but used their monopoly position to squash them, at least in the realm of pre-installs?

I'm not sure why this should matter, though. I don't see why it's somehow better to use technical means to refuse to allow there to be a competitive market, than to use shady business deals to ensure a competitive market doesn't grow.

Post reply on HN