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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#801

Post by freedomben »

gspencley wrote: post #797
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better Out of curiosity, say that I'm not a techie that knows all about Apple vs alternatives ... and say I'm interested in buying Apple because I like the aesthetics of the device or something. Is there anything actually explicit in Apple's marketing that makes it clear to the consumer that they are buying into a "locked garden" ? Part of this di…

Agreed, and also worth pointing out that Apple has rules for apps in the app store that they aren't allowed to tell you about Apple's cut and point you to a different place to buy. That is the absolute opposite of informing the user. Apple is preventing anybody from informing the user.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#802

Post by nicce »

thereddaikon wrote: post #772
nicce wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't like the idea of not owning my own phone either, but you are not exactly forbidden to do whatever you like with your phone. It is more about what are you capable of.

This cap of capability has been increasing drastically with technology. Even if you had an old, repairable car, not everyone has capabilities to repair it or modify it to something else in the past. But now even less likely.

The question is that how much they hinder on purpose? In the case of Apple, many times it might have been hindering on purpose, but some choices have also valid points.

If you remember the old times of Android (and still), Android provides extra-ordinary attack surface for malware what iOS has never had.

The distinction between Google and Apple is that you might think that with Android, as there are many manufacturers and brands, you have a choice, but it is just an illusion, if Google "abuses" it's market place with other manufactures.

In the case of Apple, it's just Apple. Apple can do whatever they please but is unlikely affecting any other manufacturers or brands. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to be better than Apple.

Of course, there is the value of user base. All the companies must try to adapt with the social behavior of people, and if they choose to use iPhone for playing games and listening music, companies must bring games and music on those platforms to be competitive. It is hard to get this userbase.

The biggest issue of this particular case with Google were the deals. And other manufactures and companies since Google is not manufacturing the phones itself, but instead makes secret deals about the Play Store and other software. This goes to line of monopoly abuse, since it affects other companies and the illusion of choice, and also hinders innovation.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#803

Post by willseth »

gardenhedge wrote: post #676
nodamage wrote: post #674

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding why Apple won their case against Epic while Google lost theirs. The key reason Apple won their case is the fact that consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store. If they disagreed with that restriction then they could have made the choice to purchase another phone instead, but d…

"Knowingly agrees" - that phrase is doing a lot. The average consumer who buys an iPhone has no idea about Apple approved apps or app store restrictions. There also not told about it when purchasing the device or setting it up.

Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buying any device with services attached to sit in a little room and interrogate them until you're sure they understand every detail?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#804

Post by enragedcacti »

danaris wrote: post #795
enragedcacti wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?

Both those things can be true at the same time: it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I agree, which is why I think its a silly moral justification for the 30% split.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#805

Post by pipes »

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.

They aren't "taking revenue" they are providing a service. If audible don't want to use that service they don't have to.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#806

Post by gbalduzzi »

turquoisevar wrote: post #782
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! 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 mak…

I don't think this relates to Apple case.

Apple doesn't allow other stores to exist on their ecosystem. That's a problematic monopoly, because competitors can not exists.

That's different from what you are saying: other companies are allowed to create smart thermostat and compete against Nest

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#807

Post by freedomben »

theshrike79 wrote: post #701
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...

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.

I don't think they should be allowed to lock things down either, but if given the constraight of what is instead what ought to be, then Apple should market the iPhone then as a specialized console, not as a general purpose device

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#808

Post by detourdog »

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!

Or it”s a great feature depending on your one’s opinion.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#809

Post by namtab00 »

turquoisevar wrote: post #782
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! 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 mak…

you're saying, in a very simplified way, you can have a monopoly if you already have a monopoly..

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#810

Post by shafyy »

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!

Apple will start allow sideloading, at least in the EU, because they are kind of forced to now by EU regulation.
Post reply on HN