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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#911

Post by MBCook »

kccqzy wrote: post #471
madeofpalk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exe…

That does not refute the point. Google gives you a choice of A or B and then incentives you to choose A. And then Apple gives you one choice which is A. Now tell me which is worse.

Google didn’t incentivize you to choose A. They incentivized Samsung not to give you choice B at all so you’d have to install it yourself.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#912

Post by gardenhedge »

willseth wrote: post #848
gardenhedge wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you have Apple Stores in your country? They're almost always packed. Could you imagine how insane it would be to do that? Would you no longer be able buy iPhones online? What you suggest is completely infeasible.

We must be thinking about this different because it seems very straightforward to me for this particular scenario.

By the way, I don't care if it slows down Apple's phones sold per minute/hour metric.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#913

Post by Nathanba »

ryao wrote: post #882
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…

The average person needs safeguards to prevent them from being tricked into installing malware by seemingly trustworthy black hats. They should not be given devices that lack safeguards. That means having a gatekeeper that curates things. Be it Apple or Google, a gate keeper is a necessity for security. Even for non-average people, gatekeepers like Gentoo's or Debian's package maintainer(s) do a great deal of good.

Those safeguards should be on a technical level and with the human gatekeepers being swappable for whoever you trust most. Which is what different app stores effectively do: different human rating, moderation and trust descriptions.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#914

Post by surgical_fire »

scarface_74 wrote: post #909
surgical_fire wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or just maybe don’t buy devices that don’t meet your needs?

What happens when no devices meet your needs, but you don't have an option?

It's nearly impossible to do certain things without a cell phone nowadays. For example, without a cell phone I literally can't pay for electricity or heating on my apartment.

I dislike both Android and iOS. But there's no option. I picked the lesser of two evils out of necessity.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#915

Post by nitwit005 »

ryao wrote: post #882
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…

The average person needs safeguards to prevent them from being tricked into installing malware by seemingly trustworthy black hats. They should not be given devices that lack safeguards. That means having a gatekeeper that curates things. Be it Apple or Google, a gate keeper is a necessity for security. Even for non-average people, gatekeepers like Gentoo's or Debian's package maintainer(s) do a great deal of good.

The monopoly isn't necessary for that though. It can just present you with choices of app store during phone setup. It's not like some Amazon app store is going to be automatically less secure.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#916

Post by mcphage »

cyberax wrote: post #303
mcphage wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely. What? That’s not true. There are plenty of Android-only developers.

Any example of a major Android-only app for the US?

Major? Probably not many; once you're a major developer, you'll go wherever there's money to be made. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to skip iOS—but unless you have some philosophical objection to it, there's no reason why you would.

But anyway, you said "As a developer..." not "As a major developer...".

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#917

Post by rstuart4133 »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #895
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't doubt you used Googles app store to access the banks app (as would I), but it's not because of something Google forces you to do. It's because your bank put it there, and it's a very a convenient service for both you and your bank. Unlike the iPhone environment the bank had a choice in using the app store. They could have you side load it, or they could put it in an alternate app store, or hell they could open source it and use FDroid's app store.

It seems to me there is very little stopping there being a whole pile of competing Android app stores out there. Technically there's nothing stopping it in fact, as the existence of FDroid illustrates. It's purely a matter of convenience - which is the same thing that drives Chrome's dominance on Android despite there being better browsers available for free. The play store app is pre-installed and is almost a one stop stop for all the apps you could possibly want, so who is going to bother loading another app store?

Turns out that edge in convenience is enough to create an effective monopoly in app stores, for most people anyway.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#918

Post by theshrike79 »

kibwen wrote: post #721
theshrike79 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

You could say that the three major console manufacturers have even stricter requirements for applications than Apple has.

And still Apple is the one being sued.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#919

Post by abvdasker »

Even by the absurdly high US antitrust standards of consumer harm Apple and Google's app stores qualify as anti-competitive. Major corporations like Netflix have made it impossible to sign up for the service in-app because the lost signups cost less than the app store fees. The pound of flesh Google and Apple extract is probably downright prohibitive for many smaller businesses who can't afford to take the hit on signups. Who knows how many promising startups have been smothered in the cradle because of these anti-competitive practices? This is a case of simple economic inefficiency created by monopolies and it needs to end.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#920

Post by nodamage »

jzl wrote: post #870
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…

It’s not like there was some centralized decision making here. It’s possible for the two cases to be contradictory, given jury vs bench, and a whole host of other reasons. I think it’s safe to say that there’s still a long road ahead for both cases, and it’s possible that one outcome will affect the other in the appeals process. Not to mention any legislation that might get passed as a result.

I agree that the cases are very different, I'm only speaking to the particulars of the Apple case here.

That said I think the jury vs bench is a red herring here given that Apple prevailed at the appeals court level where there is no jury involved.

Post reply on HN