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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#871

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danaris wrote: post #796
kibwen wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a gotcha; consoles should be required to support homebrew games as well.

I mean...I agree, but as things stand, they aren't . It's one thing to say "this is how the law should be, so that Apple should have to open their platform"; it's quite another to say "as the law is right now , Apple should have to open their platform."

US antitrust laws are nominally extremely broad and are basically down to the courts to interpret, so what the law is right now is whatever you can convince the judge, which largely a matter of making a convincing argument that what they're doing is bad.

If the courts get it wrong then you have to go to Congress, sure. But then you're in the same place -- convince Congress that it's bad.

Either way we're having a debate about whether it should be allowed. And the answer is no -- this business model is anti-competitive, for any business, and if existing interpretations of the anti-trust laws don't currently prohibit it, they should.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#872

Post by jzl »

hinkley wrote: post #407
hipadev23 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.

Apple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.

> Apple charges 30% on your second $million

Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#873

Post by tibbydudeza »

ralfd wrote: post #746
tibbydudeza wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting question - since they charge a flat fee and revenue sharing model based on sales it is not like Google who had a secret deal with Spotify and Netflix.

Honest questions: I thought Playstation and Xbox had "secret" deals? They have their own studios, they buy exclusives, timed exclusives, special promotions, games optimized for platform A but not for B etc?

Also Nintendo is a player - funny how Epic did not take Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo to court over their closed ecosystems.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#875

Post by diffeomorphism »

batty_alex wrote: post #717
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers…

> What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem

Obviously not equivalent.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#876

Post by stonogo »

jojobas wrote: post #847
gleenn wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOSP has effectively been dead for a long time. You need Google Play services for almost everything now and more and more creeps into the proprietary portion.

No you don't. Writing an app to use google services is a choice. There's MicroG for silly apps that require google services, and there's also life without using silly apps that require google services.

Please note how you dismiss apps requiring Google Play services as "silly," when most people who use those services use them as part of the hardware root of trust programs for work apps, or other device attestation for banking apps. Putting demeaning adjectives in front of the things you're arguing against isn't a compelling argument, I think you'll find, and "life without" banking and work apps leads to a lower quality of life for a lot of people.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#877

Post by saghm »

talentedcoin wrote: post #543
saghm wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bible doesn't say anything at all about abortion. It wouldn't matter if it did though, because they have no problem ignoring plenty of things that actually are in it when it would conflict with political success.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” — Jeremiah 1:5

If anything, that sounds like it's saying life begins _before_ conception, not at conception. By that logic, it's also murder to wear a condom or pull out

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#879

Post by Izkata »

remram wrote: post #475
asadotzler wrote: post #453

I see too many otherwise smart people suggesting that no one but Google could make a safe or otherwise good app store for Android. That makes me sad. The outcome of this trial should be that ALL Google Play Android APIs are public and documented and that Google be disallowed for a period of say 10 years from developing any new Play Store features on APIs that are not part of that public set. Want to add something to…

I don't understand what "Google Play API" means. The point is the store, not store features or store APIs. The store is a monopoly.

There are locked down APIs that require Google Play Services to access, and IIRC some of them are only allowed to Google apps and can't be accessed by third-party apps.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#880

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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!

> "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down"

No. It’s you can have a monopoly if you treat everyone equally and don’t make secret deals with anyone.

This is a generally accepted and non controversial practice in certain areas.

Of course not saying that this should be the case for app stores or that Apple is actually treating everyone equally..

Post reply on HN