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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#781

Post by beacham »

throwaway18636 wrote: post #756
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.

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…

[flagged]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#782

Post by turquoisevar »

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!

The rule of thumb, in a very simplified way, is indeed that you can have a monopoly as long as you don’t actively leverage that power to stifle competition.

That’s not a result of this case but a result of all the jurisprudence leading up to this case.

And to a certain degree, that makes sense. The alternative, making all monopolies illegal, would cause too much havoc because it would affect almost everyone putting out a product.

Say, for example, you’re a newcomer in the market of smart thermostats. By definition, you have a monopoly on your thermostats. If monopolies are by definition illegal, regardless of circumstance, you’d have to allow Nest to put software on your thermostat advertising their products.

That’s an undesirable outcome, if only because it makes it harder for you to compete in that market.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#783

Post by DuctTapeAI »

boringg wrote: post #771

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.

From what I understand it's all ego and ethics from him - the board is not stoked about the risk involved and the potential upside. I think Epic has something to gain by removing app store fees for medium sized games though - that would put money back in their pocket creating an opportunity to charge more for Unreal revshare.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#784

Post by zamadatix »

boringg wrote: post #771

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.

Underdog yes, it's a multi billion dollar company going after multi trillion dollar companies. Fighting for the little guy nah, fighting for their own interests. Those interests are probably closer to aligning with what the typical small/individual player might want than what the larger players want but that's not why they are doing it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#785

Post by nfriedly »

boringg wrote: post #771

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.

Yeah, to my view, it's one giant corporation battling another giant corporation, with little regard for end users like me.

I suppose Epic is the smaller of the two, so relative to Google, maybe they are the underdog. But compared to me they're both "big dogs".

In general, I am in favor of breaking up monopolies and making smart phones and other devices more open so, on the surface, this seems like a good result.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#786

Post by [deleted] »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #777
boringg wrote: post #771

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.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#787

Post by devit »

SushiHippie wrote: post #481
devit wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It runs as a privileged app. It uses that to install new applications and update applications installed by other app stores without the OS-level confirmation, probably can't be uninstalled on most Android OSes and perhaps some other things.

Auto updates can be implemented by other apps without prompt. [0] But you're right on initial install there is that installation confirmation prompt and other stores may be uninstalled. [0] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...

Yes, but it's without prompt only for apps that they themselves installed, while Google Play can bypass that.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#788

Post by cqqxo4zV46cp »

beacham wrote: post #779
michaelt wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#789

Post by burnerburnson »

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-...

He said "friendlier than apple." Please read the comment in its entirety before replying next time.
Post reply on HN