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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#701

Post by theshrike79 »

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...

This exact same argument works for Nintendo, Sony PlayStation and the Xbox

They all have closed application ecosystems and don’t allow third party stores.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#702

Post by pyrale »

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!

I guess part of the result is "you can't lock your ecosystem while pretending it's open". As for Apple's situation, it's different enough to warrant a separate lawsuit.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#703

Post by andy_ppp »

msh wrote: post #693
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 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.

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#704

Post by a1o »

shiroiuma wrote: post #651
echelon wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. N…

Hey, re-read the dude post you are replying, there are parentheses to signal which specific actor or none for both. Perhaps they weren't there when you answered.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#705

Post by fidotron »

subpixel wrote: post #688
fidotron wrote: post #617

The impact of the OEM deals can not be understated, and actually account for Android not being dominant in TV or IoT because Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation. For instance, for a long time if you wanted to make a device with the Play Store on you could not make any Android device which did not have the Play Store, even as a third par…

I think you mean can’t be overstated?

Yes you are right, thanks. Too late to edit.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#706

Post by SilverBirch »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #22

I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything. Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.

Force them to spin out the play store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#707

Post by pentae »

andy_ppp wrote: post #703
msh wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#708

Post by carstenhag »

topherPedersen wrote: post #536

Google is quite a bit more developer friendly than Apple. Glad to see Epic and developers get a win here, but too bad the courts sided with Apple. Would have liked to see App Store / Play Store duopoly broken up.

Google is in this case less developer friendly. They made secret deals with Spotify (0% fees when using Spotify billing, 4% when using Play Store billing), but it took lawsuits for normal devs to only have to pay 15% on the first million.

So yeah, it's a middle finger to all devs from Google.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#709

Post by davedx »

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…

> we have a government that doesn't like to spend money

Lol, what?

I'm from Northern Europe, where running a 3% deficit is seen as edgy and daring.

"In FY 2023, the federal government spent $6.13 trillion and collected $4.44 trillion in revenue"

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#710

Post by ClumsyPilot »

laserlight wrote: post #620
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…

> Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. I don't think that's stupid. Blocking access using code is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is manipulative. It gives the impression that the platform is open to competition, when it isn't.

Blocking access using guns is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly.

Therefore, I support the Mexican drug cartels

Post reply on HN