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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#651

Post by shiroiuma »

echelon wrote: post #256
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!

Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless. Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them. - Tax 30% - Control when and how software can be deployed - Can pull software or deny updates - Prevent web downloads (Appl…

>Battery not replaceable

You might be able to blame Apple for starting this and continuing it on their phones, but I don't think Google is pushing Android handset makers to do this at all, just like I don't think Google is pushing Samsung (and maybe some others) to eliminate 3.5mm headphone jacks on their phones. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things where the whole industry is just copying each other. Non-removable batteries are better for manufacturers for various reasons, but bad for consumers, and they've conned consumers into accepting it.

>Unfriendly to repairs

Same here. Nothing is keeping Android phone makers from being repair-friendly.

>Updates obsolete old hardware

This is Apple-only. The Android counterpoint is "Updates simply cease after 2-3 years, leaving you with security vulnerabilities that won't be fixed", but here again it's the fault of the handset makers, not Google: they're just too lazy, and Google is too stupid and short-sighted to force them to support their phones longer-term to improve the Android brand image.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#652

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> 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 is not really what the courts said (and to my knowledge the people who said it weren't members of the Libertarian Party or Austrian Economists).

The actual quote from the Supreme Court is, "It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects."

The idea here is that, for example, if Walmart can undercut you on price and you go out of business, that's harm to competitors but not competition, because Walmart is only able to do that by offering the same product for a lower price. They can only do it by competing, and only for as long as they continue to outcompete the alternatives. As soon as they tried to raise prices or reduce quality, competitors could spring up to take the market from them.

That isn't what Apple is doing. If you want to offer an app store for iOS that only takes a 5% cut, Apple will actively interfere with you -- and then they take a larger cut despite the existence of prospective competitors willing to take less. That's not consumers choosing the incumbent because they're the most competitive, it's the incumbent preventing consumers from having a choice. It's harm to competition.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#653

Post by DeathArrow »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #97
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.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though

You can install and run apps from Aurora store without having Google Services installed? Did Aurora store replace Google Services somehow? Many apps depend on those services.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#654

Post by staplers »

DeathArrow wrote: post #650

I dislike Android because of Google. I dislike IPhone because it's too expensive and too closed and locked. What choice do I still have if I want to also run some of the most popular apps?

Illusion of choice creates a stronger buy-in from participants, even if they don't have a choice at all.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#655

Post by gleenn »

inlined wrote: post #642
kohlerm wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Especially since Google had always had the AOSP as a reasonable way of demonstrating their commitment to the industry as a whole disjoint from the places where they thought the Google ecosystem provided extra value (which they admittedly require you to take wholesale)

AOSP has effectively been dead for a long time. You need Google Play services for almost everything now and more and more creeps into the proprietary portion.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#656

Post by wilg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #638
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…

> 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...

Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#657

Post by wilg »

DeathArrow wrote: post #650

I dislike Android because of Google. I dislike IPhone because it's too expensive and too closed and locked. What choice do I still have if I want to also run some of the most popular apps?

You can choose either one, or any other phone operating system. Nobody's obligated to make a popular phone operating system that satisfies all your desires.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#659

Post by ggm »

DeathArrow wrote: post #650

I dislike Android because of Google. I dislike IPhone because it's too expensive and too closed and locked. What choice do I still have if I want to also run some of the most popular apps?

Go off-piste and depend on unknown third parties running builds based on AOSP.

But, some things "blobs" mainly, are probably unavoidable.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#660

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

cyberax wrote: post #387
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently you read only half the comment. Do you understand the distinction between destruction and construction or don't you? By your logic there would be no towns, cities, countries, unions, companies, any kind of organization at all. Because any time you need to pay for something, you feel like it's the mafia. - Is it the mafia when it comes time to pay time for rent. "I HAVE to pay rent or I'll be kicked out on…

> Apparently you read only half the comment. Do you understand the distinction between destruction and construction or don't you? Are you a part of mafia? How else would you defend Apple that is bent on destruction?

Isn’t this site supposed to have at least semi-intelligent people?
Post reply on HN