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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#821

Post by freedomben »

JieJie wrote: post #239
cyberax wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. That's exactly what Apple does. If you make a mobile app (for example, a presentation manager) you _have_ to support iOS, or you will go out of business. As a developer, you simply don't have a choice. You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely.

You could, however, give as much of the product away as you can for free (less $100 a year for developer account) and then Apple is basically paying you to distribute it on their platform. That's definitely not the mafia. If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app. You…

You realize that free apps still have to pass all the Apple rules in order to get in the store right? If they disagree with anything about your app, then you're blocked. I think that's a good thing for consumers (or at least it would be if they allowed sideloading for people who don't want to be controlled) but that doesn't change the reality that as a developer, Apple is the mafia.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#822

Post by oleganza »

gbalduzzi wrote: post #806
turquoisevar wrote: post #782

Earlier 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! 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

By the same logic, other phonemakers can come over and make phones. The definition of what is a "market" is arbitrary and subjective. Google may be a monopoly in internet search, but only a small player in "global advertisement". And anyone anywhere is a monopolist in the very narrow definition of the market that includes their own ten customers.

What's really important is the power play: your company should strive to hold a comfortable and stable monopoly position in a meaningful market (meaningful to you), while the government's role is to watch over all the businesses so that large numbers of people are not under heavy influence of external forces and not made unhappy. If any product exploits its monopoly by shifting the power from the government or making people sad, then gov steps in and interprets the rules in the way to correct this. Or, the gov is corrupt and helps keep that monopoly going :-)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#823

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

cyberax wrote: post #300
JieJie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, however, give as much of the product away as you can for free (less $100 a year for developer account) and then Apple is basically paying you to distribute it on their platform. That's definitely not the mafia. If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app. You…

> If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app Basically, you can't make money. Duh. You can't even place a link for a third-party payment system (the case to allow that is on its way to SCOTUS). Apple is a mafia.

"They want money from my app when I want money from their store! Therefore I'm a victim and they're a mafia."

Seems to me you're not noticing the Kremlin levels of cognitive dissonance in your statement here. With this severe lack of self-awareness, if you were in Apple's place you'd be way worse than they are right now.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#824

Post by kaladin-jasnah »

echelon wrote: post #256
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!

Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless. Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them. - Tax 30% - Control when and how software can be deployed - Can pull software or deny updates - Prevent web downloads (Appl…

The way you put it—"FOMO in children," really does it justice. The way Apple uses their messaging service is almost psychological manipulation of children to increase their market share.

It's so sad that a company that resorts to those kinds of tactics to increase their market share, as opposed to, just selling more of their product because it's a superior product.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#825

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

> I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden.

I can, and I don't mind. Let it happen. Computer freedom is more important than preventing scams and fraud. Just have the corporations and banks eat the losses instead. God knows these trillion dollar corporations can afford it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#826

Post by cma »

astrange wrote: post #687
cma wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more a portfolio of companies that many make less, but a few hits cover the investment in the rest (the standard publishing and tech investing story). If the hits are going to take a 18% rev loss compared to say Epic's 12% store, then that's 18% less funding for the rest if things are invested efficiently/predicted well for the portfolio.

Note it's 15% on the first $1 million then 30% after, at least for Google. So you're not losing money by being just above it either.

Yeah, I'm considering where $1 million isn't a significant portion of the revenue.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#827

Post by notnullorvoid »

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…

How does allowing 3rd party app stores negatively affect the elderly? Just like Android the ability to install 3rd party apps and stores would likely be off by default and you'd need to enable it in the settings. And even after enabling it installing something gives you a pretty clear warning that what you're doing could be dangerous.

If that's not enough warning for someone then they probably shouldn't have a smart phone, or if they do it should have strict parental controls on it (blocking 3rd party installs, most sites, and phone calls/texts).

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#828

Post by gardenhedge »

willseth wrote: post #803
gardenhedge wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

In my country chemists are required to give you some information before selling you certain drugs. Something similar could be done.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#829

Post by surgical_fire »

scarface_74 wrote: post #557
praisewhitey wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the Smart TV or Cars run Android (TV or Auto) then this case should extend to them too

Why just Android TV? Why not Roku and PalmOS? And regulatory agencies and car manufacturers are never going to let you install what you want on car screens.

And this is fine. Devices with different purposes require different regulations.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#830

Post by dcow »

oleganza wrote: post #822
gbalduzzi wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

By the same logic, other phonemakers can come over and make phones. The definition of what is a "market" is arbitrary and subjective. Google may be a monopoly in internet search, but only a small player in "global advertisement". And anyone anywhere is a monopolist in the very narrow definition of the market that includes their own ten customers. What's really important is the power play: your company should strive t…

How about a _market_ is anything where there exists a _marketplace_? Doesn't seem like a wild stretch. Now why should Apple have a monopoly on accepting payments on its platform?

To your second point: people are sad that we can’t have cheaper and better software on iOS. It’s a poor UX when an app makes me go on my desktop to sign up for their paid service. It negatively impacts consumers and only exists because Apple is wielding its monopoly.

Post reply on HN