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

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#621

Post by kmeisthax »

oarsinsync wrote: post #612
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.

This sounds suspiciously similar to the “evil maid” attack: all bets on security are off when you’ve got physical access to the device. This is a well known weakness in all platforms. Some platforms manage short term protections against this, but nothing ever withstands it in the long run.

If the adult demanded the kid's phone password, it's rubber hose cryptanalysis. If the adult set up the password for the kid, it's a supply chain attack. Evil maid implies you don't know the password at all, which doesn't sound like the case here.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#622

Post by rpmisms »

mvdtnz wrote: post #225
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no…

Wait a second are you saying Apple is a government unto itself?

They have more money and effective power than most governments worldwide.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#623

Post by ThatPlayer »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #608
ThatPlayer wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. If no iOS user wants a 3rd party store, no one will install them, all of them will fail and we wouldn't be talking about this. So why are Apple so afraid of a little competition? I think some iOS users (me) are willing to use other stores. And that's why Apple blocking it is anti-competitive.

One plausible argument is that Apple is afraid of other parties competing unfairly; if apps can ship outside the App Store - and, critically, if they can thereby bypass some of the restrictions Apple imposes through their review process - then ex. Google and Facebook could ship apps that do bad things (probably privacy related) and abuse their own market positions to coerce people into using such apps. Given that thi…

> If a user wants a 3rd party app store, why did they buy an iOS device?

Wants and circumstances can change over time. When I purchased my device, Fortnite and Xbox Cloud Streaming were available from the Apple App Store. Now they aren't.

Also I can want more out of my device; none of my devices are perfect but I still buy them. I believe 3rd party stores would be an improvement to my device. Replace the feature "3rd party app store" with folding phone: "Why did they purchase an iOS device if they wanted a folding phone" is a leap in logic to "No iOS user wants a folding phone"

A year ago, I'd say USB-C, but that's no longer the case.

> if they can thereby bypass some of the restrictions Apple imposes through their review process

Those same restrictions are blocking apps like Xbox Cloud Streaming. When Apple chooses to block those, but I still want access to apps, 3rd parties providing the such apps isn't unfair competition.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#624

Post by frumper »

MBCook wrote: post #357
hedora wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.

But it wouldn’t because I don’t think that’s what it means. They appear to have ruled that Google has a monopoly because they’ve been squashing everyone else who should have been able to make an App Store by Google’s policies. Apple isn’t squashing anyone, they just don’t allow it in the first place. So I don’t think this would apply to Apple because of the line of reasoning . I know most people on hacker news think…

Apple actively squashes attempts to jailbreak the phone which allows for additional app stores. The fact they aren’t mainstream alternatives is because Apple takes actions to stop the competition.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#625

Post by kmeisthax »

scarface_74 wrote: post #233
tpush wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sandboxing had nothing to with any app store, and Android security empathetically doesn't suck.

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.

Android has privacy indicators for when software is recording things on the phone. Wouldn't that give the coworker away? Or does his son just have an old phone? (The privacy indicators are fairly new, IMO, but it mirrors a thing Apple did a few years ago.)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#626

Post by CobrastanJorji »

jimbob45 wrote: post #522
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?

There's a large sect that believes that abortion should never be performed. However, the vast majority understands the pragmatism behind the six week restriction: forcing women to carry rape/incest/coerced babies incentivizes the raping/incesting/coercing parties to do so knowing that their actions will pay off. Allowing abortion before six weeks dissuades such behavior.

More practically, it allows you to claim what Jimbo here is describing without any practical loss. At two weeks pregnant, you likely haven't even had sex yet. A pregnancy test might not be positive until week five or so, and there are only a couple of abortion clinics in conservative states, so you've potentially got a window of just a couple of days between finding that you need one and getting one. So a six week ban is more of a PR move than an actual thing that people believe in.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#627

Post by ec109685 »

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…

Can you really say that was why they lost? A jury found Epic’s case compelling against Google while a judge did not with Apple.

Is it a specific reason or a difference of opinion?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#628

Post by HlessClaudesman »

Animats wrote: post #600
EA-3167 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people ? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.

> I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Exactly. If you take US antitrust law as written, once you're close to being the dominant player, you can't have a walled garden.

So the law says that once your city reaches a certain size you must let in the barbarian hordes? In this case the barbarians are the malicious apps that would have been stopped by app store vetting. Seems like a bad deal for the average citizen of that city.

I think tech savvy users should be able to (after jumping through a few hoops) do whatever they want with their phones, without any fear of reprisal from software and hardware manufacturers. If Apple and Google insist on strangling this market then Tim Sweeney has the money to develop a competing phone ecosystem, it could be a great business opportunity if a large number of users and developers are actually not being well served. But he may find that this underserved population is a quite small slice of the total addressable market, and that walled gardens actually do a good job for the vast majority of users, protecting my oblivious grandma who clicks on everything from a horde of scammers.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#629

Post by kohlerm »

meepmorp wrote: post #585
brandensilva wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.

I think what they meant could be rephrased as, "for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been part of the OS. "

What does thad mean "part of the OS"? It is not built into the kernel, and is therefore no part of the OS. I do not see why the same would not apply to Apple. But maybe the US legal system is just totally broken ...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#630

Post by kohlerm »

bofaGuy wrote: post #546
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!

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.

Ok so Google is punished for being more open in the first case? Sounds fishy to me ...
Post reply on HN