Epic vs. Google: Google Loses • Hacker News Board

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#631

Post by jgilias » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #591

onli wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code i…

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "h…

Thanks for the footnotes, made my day! :lol:

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#632

Post by tavavex » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

asadotzler wrote: post #446

Dylan16807 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.

If they had restricted those APIs way back when, Android would have stalled and Tizen or some other platform would have eaten a huge chunk of the market they have today. You can't just change some important historical detail and pretend there would be zero consequences except the ones you care about.

How can you be certain that changing this detail would result in Android failing? Was it really app sideloading and allowing other stores that made Android successful? I think the biggest contributing factor was that it was made by Google (who had the money to both partner with other manufacturers and eventually make their own hardware), in combination with a lack of other options that'd directly compete with iOS (you mentioned Tizen, but it wouldn't come out for another 4 years after Android's release)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#633

Post by skydhash » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #593

skydhash wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Apple, it's the same market. Because the only way to get access to the App Store is through an iPhone bought from Apple. And the only way to run an iOS app is with the same iPhone.

Yes, but this is only because Apple designed the phone that way. Apple should not be immune from antitrust law purely because they decided not to allow competition.

They do allow competition. Build your own phone and your own app store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#634

Post by rpmisms » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

johndhi wrote: post #321

Couple of thoughts for HN as a lawyer: 1. The fact that Google lost here doesn't bind or affect apple. Jury verdicts aren't binding on any party other than those in the lawsuit. Apple may or may not be found to violate the law in a separate case. 2. Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership. I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US…

The case can be used as precedent, though.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#635

Post by ddxv » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:50 AM UTC

johndhi wrote: post #321

Couple of thoughts for HN as a lawyer: 1. The fact that Google lost here doesn't bind or affect apple. Jury verdicts aren't binding on any party other than those in the lawsuit. Apple may or may not be found to violate the law in a separate case. 2. Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership. I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US…

I feel like answer 2 promotes the basis that such a complaint by Google is acceptable.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#636

Post by colechristensen » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:50 AM UTC

jachee wrote: post #611

colechristensen wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving preferential treatment to one customer at the expense of other customers is not anticompetitive behavior as defined by any law I'm aware of. The law doesn't say you have to give everybody the same deal just because it's "unfair" to others. The monopoly/antitrust/etc. laws are about misusing a position of power for your own benefit at the expense of competitors. Apple doesn't have to be "fair" to Netflix vs Max…

Plus, Netflix isn’t even Apple’s customer. It’s actually kinda the other way around: Apple’s customers are what Netflix wants access to, as a source of potential Netflix customers.

When you’re a marketplace, especially a big one, both the people buying in your store and the people selling in your store start to look like customers, both paying you for access to the other. For the sellers is obviously more implicit, but still often explicit like grocery stores getting paid to put specific products on aisle end caps and such.

The whole 30% fee is premised on providing services to app makers for money.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#637

Post by justinclift » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:50 AM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #591

onli wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code i…

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "h…

> South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure.

Some parts of that infrastructure seem to be having serious problems now:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#638

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:52 AM UTC

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…

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.

So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#639

Post by inlined » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:52 AM UTC

jncfhnb wrote: post #377

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If we see fair competition reducing fees massively in android vs Apple, Apple’s abuse will be clear

Unless Apple has a most favored nation clause—another legal practice that should be outlawed

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#640

Post by rpmisms » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #463

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cir…

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?

Because Republicans are trying to curry favor with everyone. Hard-liners like myself believe that abortion at any stage is morally equivalent to homicide—only acceptable if the life of the mother is also at risk. The 6 week ban doesn't actually solve the problem, just delivers a pyrrhic victory to win votes.