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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#731

Post by kkzz99 »

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!

Will that not change with the new EU rules?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#733

Post by tibbydudeza »

kibwen wrote: post #721
theshrike79 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't a gotcha; consoles should be required to support homebrew games as well.

Interesting question - since they charge a flat fee and revenue sharing model based on sales it is not like Google who had a secret deal with Spotify and Netflix.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#734

Post by Dah00n »

carstenhag wrote: post #708
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-...

>Google is in this case less developer friendly. They made secret deals with Spotify

Are you saying Apple is different? I'd like to see the info on those deals if it isn't secret. Like the Spotify deal, Facebook deal, etc.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#735

Post by skydhash »

cycomanic wrote: post #691
skydhash wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it was from the start, yes. Just like they don’t support replacin explorer.exe, the network stack. If you allow competition, but use leverage to stiffle it, it’s bad.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#736

Post by mschuster91 »

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.

It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well:

- for employees, they're bad because monopolies (or cartels) suppress their freedom to go to a better employer. The best case to look at is actually the tech sector, where large corporations colluded to keep compensation down [1], but there's also more evil cases like WalMart that go as far as underpay their employees so badly that they can only survive on food stamps [6].

- for suppliers, they're bad (in the correct term of a monopsony) because having only a few (or only one) buyer depresses their ability to get fair prices for products, e.g. in agriculture [2], or in WalMart [3][4]

- for customers, they're bad because they can't (realistically) go to alternatives, especially if the monopoly in question has extinguished competitors by advantages of scale - again, WalMart is a nasty example [5].

- for society as a whole, they're bad because, again, large actors like WalMart can devastate vibrant community centers like malls, leading to dereliction of entire neighborhoods in a domino effect [7], and eventually the erosion of local tax bases, leading to funding issues for basic government services.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

[2] https://usceconreview.com/2022/07/06/america-where-even-sust...

[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-marts-suppliers-feel-pre...

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-ratchets-up-pressure-o...

[5] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp

[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

[7] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/20/how-mall-closings-in-america...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#737

Post by TheBigSalad »

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 agree, but consumers have spoken with their wallets and overwhelmingly prefer a big corporation to have full control.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#738

Post by ralfd »

pentae wrote: post #707
andy_ppp wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#739

Post by UncleMeat »

LoganDark wrote: post #545
bogwog wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has. That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

Specifically GMS runs as a "privileged app" (that's what priv-apps stands for) which can declare access to permissions in the manifest that non-privileged apps can't even ask for.

Importantly, this is largely a property of preloaded apps rather than GMS explicitly.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#740

Post by heap_perms »

haswell wrote: post #544
whatshisface wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are politicians trying to pass a law that is, "deeply unpopular?" Do they want to lose elections, or something?

The religious beliefs that underlie these laws are the driving force. The people who hold these beliefs see the political system as a means to an end, and future losses do not matter if the goal is reached. I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the m…

Interesting. Coming from a progressive european coutry, this sounds outrageously absurd. The idea of enacting laws based on the bible seems not just archaic but almost surreal. Are they stuck in the middle ages?
Post reply on HN