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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#691

Post by cycomanic »

skydhash wrote: post #633
kmeisthax wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So by that argument if MS would have disallowed installation of any other browser it would have been OK, because competitor could just build their own operating system.

The whole argument is that Apple is leveraging the position in one market (hardware) to gain advantage in another market. Your answer is "competitors can always build their own hardware" don't you see that this is a nonsensical argument?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#692

Post by robertlagrant »

Qwertious wrote: post #672
rezonant wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, to extend the analogy, paying the coffee patrons you think might consider opening a competitive donut shop next door to avoid that from happening (ie Google).

"Coffee patrons" would be consumers - literally paying consumers to not shop at your competitor is just offering extremely low (i.e. negative) prices, which may be perfectly legal depending on the context. Paying off gamedevs would be analogous to paying off dough-makers (or doughnut bakers?) to only supply your store, and not your competitor, which would be super illegal . AMD sued Intel for very similar activity, a…

Wouldn't Epic be paying game developers to only put games in their store? Don't console exclusives work this way all the time?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#693

Post by msh »

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 a company going around saying "we are a open system you can do what you want with our product" and then making secret deals to limit that openess is worse than a company from day one saying we are selling a 100% locked down solution, take it or leave it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#694

Post by worksonmine »

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!

> 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!

One could hope people would despise such a company and the market would fix it, but humans have proved the opposite. I've stopped trying to educate people and lost all faith in humanity. Most of them just don't care, as long as they've got their shiny stuff.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#695

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

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...

> 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...

Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity.

I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#696

Post by wasmitnetzen »

wilg wrote: post #656
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This sort of argument is exactly why good programmers are usually not good lawyers (and vice versa, of course).

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#697

Post by zigzag312 »

wilg wrote: post #656
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Maybe we should ask, how many people make a living through that market?

People that are not employees of the company that holds dominant market position.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#698

Post by m45t3r »

robertlagrant wrote: post #681
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

> There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts. Isn't the resolution the same in each case? If you have an iPhone and you want to install an app from another store, you have to buy another phone. It's the same with these deals with Android, just overt.

In most cases I can buy a donut from a competitor's and eat inside the coffee shop as long as I buy some product from the said coffee shop.

Apple prevents that I bring an outside donut from competitor's, while Android allows it. That is basically the difference.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#699

Post by kevingadd »

donedeals wrote: post #541
adam_arthur wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All three of the companies involved are American companies

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#700

Post by amai »

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?

See https://www-handyhase-de.translate.goog/magazin/android-alte..., for example https://e.foundation/.

See also https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairpho...

Post reply on HN