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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#891

Post by berkes »

turtlebits wrote: post #863
guru4consulting wrote: post #837

I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…

Customers don't necessarily want a choice. Sometimes choice equates to complexity, if it doesn't work for you, don't use the product. Apple is very well known (and probably very successful) for limiting choice, in product lines and features. IMO Android devices are already open enough - there are alternative app stores and you can sideload apps. Banks not distributing on these channels is not Google's responsibility.

> Customers don't necessarily want a choice.

But that's not a requirement for something to be a monopoly.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#892

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sidlls wrote: post #723
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

> At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone.

What percentage of people do you suppose carry two different phones in their pockets? Is this something you reasonably expect the majority of people to do?

> Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee.

Just look at your own words. Preventing other stores is like preventing competitors from selling in your store?

Preventing other stores is preventing other stores. You can put whatever you want in your store, they put what they want in theirs, and the customer gets to choose where to get their app.

Preventing the customer from using the other store is the anti-competitive thing being objected to. It doesn't need an analogy, that's literally what it is.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#893

Post by summerlight »

SllX wrote: post #840
lolinder wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU It remains to be seen whether Apple will comply with EU rules outside of the EU. If not, Epic isn't getting their way, because EU revenue alone isn't going to be enough.

I’m not even clear on if under the DMA, Apple has to comply in a way that will enable Epic to make their own store. Depending on how they intend to comply, Epic might still get excluded since they terminated Epic’s developer program accounts and their business relationship in retaliation for the lawsuit Epic filed. If Apple is still anywhere in the final process, its entirely possible other people can make their own…

After DMA, Apple must allow app sideloading. They may decide not to host Epic Games Store in App Store, but I don't think they will be allowed to block them from running their own store with sideloading.

Of course, Apple can try to circumvent but that's a blatant violation of DMA and there will be serious retaliation. EU already has given a warning[1]. Perhaps it's good to remind that Apple could've been in a better position with all the USB-C situation if they didn't insult EU congressman with laughter[2]... I don't think Tim's going to repeat the same mistake.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/apple-adopting-usb-c-po...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#894

Post by ryao »

jojobas wrote: post #861
UtahDave wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many applications such as banking applications are only available in the official app store.

Google is not to blame for the fact that your bank won't trust you to verify an apk signature. There's no fundamental need for the OS vendor to oversee app distribution.

Definitely. Blackhats are much better at overseeing application distribution than the OS vendor. :P

In all seriousness, you already have to trust the OS vendor not to be trying to do bad things. Having them oversee software distribution at least does not increase the number of organizations you need to trust. If you have someone else do it, you will be opening the door to black hats that will be clamoring to take that role. Not relying on the OS vendor to do that is how we have scams where the victims installed the malware that harmed them. :/

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#895

Post by iforgotpassword »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #878
iforgotpassword wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say I should use the app store.

So? Google isn’t forcing them to only publish on the Play Store.

Your point being? Maybe you want to read the comment I was replying to again:

> FWIW you don't really need an app store, you could download APKs off vendors/publishers.

Very evidently I do.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#896

Post by frognumber »

coolandsmartrr wrote: post #409
frognumber wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The same against Apple" is very broad so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Apple is presently less evil than Google. * Google started out pure good and turned pure evil. * Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy. * Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there. "Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices,…

What government corruption are you talking about?

More-or-less the standard stuff. When fighting for right-to-repair in my state, the major opposition was an Apple lobbyist. You can also look at DRM, worker rights in the hellholes electronics equipment gets made, etc. Not all of this even makes sense; better workers' rights would probably benefit Apple on the net, since they would hurt cut-rate vendors more, but c'est la vie.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#897

Post by felipelemos »

turtlebits wrote: post #863
guru4consulting wrote: post #837

I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…

Customers don't necessarily want a choice. Sometimes choice equates to complexity, if it doesn't work for you, don't use the product. Apple is very well known (and probably very successful) for limiting choice, in product lines and features. IMO Android devices are already open enough - there are alternative app stores and you can sideload apps. Banks not distributing on these channels is not Google's responsibility.

> Customers don't necessarily want a choice.

I was going to say that it's something for them to decide, but then the conversation was going to be circular.

Nobody should have the right to not have a right.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#898

Post by smsm42 »

msh wrote: post #693
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!

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.

The lesson of this would be terrible - never leave any openings in your walled garden or allow any compromise in excluding third parties, always keep it 100% closed.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#899

Post by crowcroft »

turtlebits wrote: post #863
guru4consulting wrote: post #837

I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…

Customers don't necessarily want a choice. Sometimes choice equates to complexity, if it doesn't work for you, don't use the product. Apple is very well known (and probably very successful) for limiting choice, in product lines and features. IMO Android devices are already open enough - there are alternative app stores and you can sideload apps. Banks not distributing on these channels is not Google's responsibility.

Take it a step further – the power grid. I don't want to have to choose which power grid to use, and we shouldn't bother making duplicate power grids. It makes sense they operate as a monopoly. Those companies are heavily regulated though.
Post reply on HN