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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#811

Post by dragonwriter »

zappb wrote: post #434
pankajdoharey wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?

District courts don’t set precedent; appellate and supreme courts do.

“Trial” inatead of “district”, and “supreme” is unnecessary, since in the cases where it is right in US court systems it is redundant with “appellate” and its wrong in New York, where “the Supreme Court” is one of many kinds of trial court (but where there are also appellate divisions and appellate terms of the Supreme Court which serve as intermediate appellate courts, with the ultimate appellate court—equivalent tothe Supreme Court in most other US jurisdictions—being the Court of Appeals.)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#812

Post by remram »

skydhash wrote: post #514
remram wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody else could pay them to put their store on? I don't understand. The fact that you get to make a deal for money seems strictly more free-market than the alternative.

As someone living in a third world country and seeing that happening in many sectors, it's the second quickest way to market degeneration (the first is straight up threats of violence). You really do not want people paying to block competition from arising.

You would rather have them block competition without paying? I really don't understand.

Or are you saying the iPhone app store has competition?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#813

Post by lijok »

amf12 wrote: post #315
lijok wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores

But, that's a false premise. Apple doesn't allow competing app stores.

Which is precisely why Apple couldn’t have been making deals for the purpose of undermining competing app stores.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#814

Post by lijok »

Drew_ wrote: post #318
lijok wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Unlike Google, the deals Apple were making weren’t for the purposes of undermining competing app stores

However, Apple's deals were for the purpose of undermining competing payment systems.

They weren’t, because Apple does not allow competing payment systems.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#815

Post by freedomben »

kmeisthax wrote: post #610
vineyardmike wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already. Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree…

Part of Epic's argument was that they wanted Apple and Google to distribute Epic Games Store, which makes your argument valid. However, the commenter you were replying to likely isn't aware of this and does not care about how they install EGS, only that they are able to do so if they do not want to deal with Apple or Google. The sneaky part of Apple's counterargument is that they try to apply your argument not to the…

> This is how it works for every other form of computer except phones and tablets.

But only because macs existed before they were able to get away with this. I would bet a huge amount of money that if macs were invented/created after the iphone, they'd be locked down exactly the same way. And many of the same people who love it on the phone would love it on the computer, even though now they would say that it's a general purpose computing device not an appliance like the phone is.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#816

Post by danaris »

nojvek wrote: post #231

I wonder if Lina Khan will be able to finally get her anti-trust case through against Google. It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech, same with Microsoft on the Blizzard acquisition. Almost if the Judges are scared of Big Tech but the Jury composed of lay people see the monopoly for what it is.

...I dunno; Epic seems to me like it's also part of Big Tech, even if it's not part of The Biggest Tech.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#817

Post by freedomben »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #262
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.

> However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house. Consumers bought this house with their eyes wide open knowing that they can only access one supermarket.

One of the biggest economic theories that has been demonstrably proven wrong is that consumers act perfectly logically and with full information. The opposite is true. I really wish it weren't because economics becomes much simpler and more intuitive when you assume perfect information and logicality, but if wishes were fishes and all that.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#818

Post by z3ncyberpunk »

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…

Why would a monopoly being illegal force you as a newcomer to brand your product as Nest? Makes Ero sense

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#819

Post by matheusmoreira »

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.

Gotta agree with you. I originally chose Android because it was relatively open but Google wiped out our freedom with hardware remote attestation. Now my bank app refuses to work if I modify my device in any way.

If I must be in a walled garden, I'm choosing the better kept one. Android is quite simply inferior, I tolerated it because it gave me relative freedom but there's no reason to tolerate it any longer.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#820

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

root_axis wrote: post #793
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think likening Apple's authority over its own platforms to the government's stranglehold on citizens helps your case. Am I doing this right?

I didn't liken Apple to a government, you did. > Am I doing this right? No.

Likening it to a government given every company has a domain over its own products and services, makes a lot more sense than likening it to a mafia which doesn't come to contribute, but only to take.

Apple allows you to ship infinite amount of apps at no cost, if you don't in return ask the store for money.

What kind of a mafia works like that?

Post reply on HN