Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

Post by dannyw » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

zemo wrote: post #379

johndhi wrote: post #321

Couple of thoughts for HN as a lawyer: 1. The fact that Google lost here doesn't bind or affect apple. Jury verdicts aren't binding on any party other than those in the lawsuit. Apple may or may not be found to violate the law in a separate case. 2. Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership. I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US…

while they do have pretty deep ties to tencent and are 40% owned by them, they’re not really chinese-owned since Epic is majority-owned by Tim Sweeney, a billionaire programmer on the Forbes 500 who mostly escapes criticism from programmers and game devs by branding himself as a savior for indie devs, which people accept uncritically because he likes to go on twitter and affirm their priors. He’s a highly effective n…

Post by granzymes » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #350

clnq wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it migh…

>The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. Trial courts don't set precedent, only an appellate court or higher can set a precedent, and that precedent is only binding on lower courts. Since trial courts are the lowest courts, their decisions are not binding on any future trial and as a general matter do not set any kind of precedent.

Post by rpdillon » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 2:15 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #751

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.

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.

Post by andy_ppp » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

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.

Post by scarface_74 » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #741

scarface_74 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a coworker say that he surreptitiously installed an app on his son’s phone that allowed him to see everything his son was doing remotely and listen in to his son’s conversations. He showed it to us in action.

Compare this to a desktop. The desktop spyware will be even more capable than the mobile spyware. And these sorts of child-tracking (and sadly, abused-partner-tracking) apps exist on both Android and iOS platforms.