Serious question - does anyone really think of Sweeney as the underdog here and that he's fighting for the "little guy" gamer? Honestly asking to me it seems like a position to take to generate some political power but at the end of the day he's representing large corporate interests as well.
Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
771–780 of 1001 posts
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#772Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you really say that was why they lost? A jury found Epic’s case compelling against Google while a judge did not with Apple. Is it a specific reason or a difference of opinion?
They are completely different cases because Apple controls the manufacturing process of every iOS devices in every phase. But Google does not control the whole product lifetime of the every Android phone out there. On the latter monopoly abuse is bigger problem. But if you make, build, control and design everything from bottom to top on the product, then it is less about monopoly abuse. It is just single total produc…
I and I think many others disagree. Apple's case seems more egregious. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my phone? Walled gardens may be a value add for some but it also spits in the face of first sale doctrine.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#773Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#774Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, they are curated by the author(s) of the Android build that the device is running.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#775Earlier 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.
If you want to have an analogy along those lines, Apple is more like a Starbucks prohibiting coffee bean providers other than the ones it has agreements with from coming into Starbucks locations to sell their coffee beans.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#776Earlier 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! 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.
This is precisely my experience as well. I think what's happening is that everybody wants authoritarian control, and in fact prefers it, right up until the authority makes a decision that runs counter to their needs. But by then it's too late.
It reminds me of the Newburgh Letter, suggesting that George Washington be declared king after winning the revolutionary war. It's like they missed the whole point of the exercise.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#777Serious question - does anyone really think of Sweeney as the underdog here and that he's fighting for the "little guy" gamer? Honestly asking to me it seems like a position to take to generate some political power but at the end of the day he's representing large corporate interests as well.
Both Google and Epic are large for-profit companies, and are primarily concerned with maximizing investor returns. Neither company should be considered "the good guy."
Despite that, I'm still glad that Epic won this case, as I believe they're in the right. But just because I think they're in the right with this court case does not mean I think that they're "the good guy," nor that they're concerned with gamers. Epic clearly has their own agenda, and in this specific case it aligns with my own.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#778Earlier 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…
> Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. Two markets ARE at play for consumers: mobile phone hardware (with OS) and mobile app stores/apps. Apple is using it's monopoly in the former to create/enforce a monopoly in the latter. You can tell there are two separate markets because you, the consumer, make (at least) two separate purchases to participate.
Hmm making the argument that apple has a monopoly on the phone market is not easy though.
I my opinion the two markets are: Providing apps on iPhone, and offering payment processing for apps on iPhone. Apple is using its absolute monopoly on providing apps to also entrenched itself in the market of providing payment for apps.
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#779Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.
Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)
[flagged]
Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
#780Earlier 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.
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 a…
Apple could still be a gate-keeper of 3rd party stores. They could dictate the security and protections that need to be in-place to be listed.
The PKI industry is a good example of this.
The Certificate authorities have to abide by standards and any misbehaving Certificate Authorities can be removed.
I'd argue the integrity of the PKI industry is just as important, if not more so, than App Stores and they have managed to maintain a device agnostic market with healthy competition.