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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#751

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

Both are bad for consumers, but one is worse.

A locked garden is a locked garden. But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better than a locked garden that advertises itself as open and then locks you in. Both are locked gardens; one is also false advertising.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#752

Post by sbuk »

nolok wrote: post #690
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…

> They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too. Just this part alone would applies to Apple the same way

And the Judge found in Epics favour on that point. Apple have a temporary reprieve, but there is an injunction ordering them to allow developers to advertise other means of payment.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#754

Post by bryanrasmussen »

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?

especially if you created a product that a large part of the world's population at the time of creation agreed was something new and defined a new category so much that a new category was created in general language to describe things like your product and other products came along later from competitors and defined themselves using that same category name - for example if someone came up with a phone that was smarter than other phones and coined the term smartphone for that then yeah, it would be like that.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#755

Post by dangus »

ralfd wrote: post #738
pentae wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s statistically insignificant because churn rates on subscription services are higher than you’d think.

A typical customer lifetime might be somewhere between a year and two years, unless you happen to be a giant like Netflix.

Let’s say you expect your customer to churn after 14 months, so that means you only enjoy 2 months of Apple’s reduced royalty rate. Your total average rate is 27%.

This concept is why many sunscription services are able to offer lifetime subscriptions. They have already figured out what one customer is worth based on churn rate, so the lifetime subscription is set up to be a price that matches or exceeds that number.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#756

Post by throwaway18636 »

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.

As a dev, I absolutely prefer Apple’s model of locked-down walled garden. HN has no idea about all the grandmas and people who are busy with their jobs and kids, aka majority of the population. I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. My only dissatisfaction is that I can’t develop for iOS without buying a Mac and a developer account, but I also understand I’m not entitled to it just because I want.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#757

Post by ralfd »

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…

This discussion is as old as PC vs console gaming. Point being this horrible walled garden also provides ease of use, makes some features even possible in the first place, and I don't need to worry that my mother is installing keylogger or malware.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#758

Post by dickersnoodle »

danbruc wrote: post #744
sidlls wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

I think it is more lake the mayor allowing his son to open a Starbucks in the city but preventing everyone else from opening a Peet's because he is concerned about how that might negatively affect the image of the city in the eyes of coffee enthusiasts as he has no control over coffee prices and quality there.

IMO this isn't the correct take. Starbucks' stores are their own property and as long as they follow applicable laws regarding public accommodations, health and safety and the like they're free to run their stores however they want to. Where I live, we've got a plethora of Starbucks but we've also got Peet's and a whole bunch of small coffee roasters/shops that seem to be doing just fine. To me, Apple's App Store is the same way - it's Apple's property, run by Apple and branded by Apple. Everyone who develops for it knows the rules and (for the most part) follows them, because Apple makes sure you read the rules in multiple different places.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#759

Post by red-iron-pine »

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.

I think there are a lot of laws about this. Guys get nicknames like "The Trust Buster" for going after them.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#760

Post by hbn »

summerlight wrote: post #198

Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU is giving their hands to do all the jobs necessary for the Apple's case. Those two stores will remain dominant (>95% share) for a foreseeable future, but at least customers will have a choice. Now I wonder what if Google/Apple decided to decrease their cut to a more reasonable level, around 10~15%? App store/Play store…

Are customers really going to have a choice? It seems more likely a bunch of big companies are gonna want to get into the game of distributing apps to get the xx% cut of IAPs, and there will be exclusivity contracts for every app you want, and you'll have to install 5 app stores that will each be managing different things, and you'll no longer have a centralized location to manage recurring billing subscriptions like we have right now.
Post reply on HN