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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#931

Post by jmoak3 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #500
jmoak3 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I've been saying. We're not incentivizing the stewardship of open platforms. Apple will die before they open their garden. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 I don't want to be pithy and low-effort here. I'm confused on why Google lost while Apple won.

As other comments have said, Google's was a jury trial, Apple's not. And, even if neither were jury trials, as another another comment said, the justice system is not a hivemind: the way your case goes can and does depend on the judge/jury passing judgement. That being said, Apple isn't stupid: they probably know as of now, even if they managed to believe it didn't before, that this monopoly on distribution has a she…

Thank you for the explanation. I'm also an Apple fan and would not leave the App Store easily, however I am unhappy that I am forever unable to do so.

I think rulings against these companies are warranted, but I want an end game where iPhone is closer to Android's best aspects, not where Android drops them to mimic iPhone's. Google could easily stop being as "anti-competitive" by not releasing another public update of Android again, launching a new "Pixel Play Store" available on Pixel, and putting all of their effort into this platform going forward. The world would be a worse place for this, and Google would likely make more services revenue. I have a feeling developers would abandon the other manufacturer's platforms in a microsecond. If Google's not allowed to have influence over the default search/apps installed on 3rd party android phones made by Samsung/HTC, why would Google even bother with the business? They only ran it to get more mobile search users into Google Search IMO.

I'm sure Google deserves to get smacked for the worst of their behavior but Apple walking away (for now) without a scratch is sending a stark message, at least to my eyes. You say Apple's time with this behavior is limited, and I can only hope you're right. Being positive, hopefully down the line, this case can be used as a wedge to peel Apple's grip open.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#932

Post by shiroiuma »

a1o wrote: post #704
shiroiuma wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Battery not replaceable You might be able to blame Apple for starting this and continuing it on their phones, but I don't think Google is pushing Android handset makers to do this at all, just like I don't think Google is pushing Samsung (and maybe some others) to eliminate 3.5mm headphone jacks on their phones. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things where the whole industry is just copying each other. N…

Hey, re-read the dude post you are replying, there are parentheses to signal which specific actor or none for both. Perhaps they weren't there when you answered.

Please re-read it yourself, and compare with my quotes: it hasn't changed since my reply and my quotes are still accurate. I'm just pointing out that there are a few points I disagree with, or which are really the fault of the hardware makers (in Android's case).

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#933

Post by crossroadsguy »

codingdave wrote: post #685
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…

It should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their dec…

I always wondered how the hell jury system works and how the hell they can put matters like this, or any matter for that matter, in the hands of a jury? Jury system seems so arbitrary to me. There is no explanation - no basis - just “we felt like this”, or rather “whatever, we want to do just do this”.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#934

Post by grok25 »

martin82 wrote: post #930
ryao wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 free market would have created many trustworthy gatekeepers itself. And given how much scammy shit there is on the two major AppStores, I would say that it is clear as day and night that Apple and Google utterly suck as "gatekeepers".

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#935

Post by grok25 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #825
throwaway18636 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#936

Post by grok25 »

gspencley wrote: post #797
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better Out of curiosity, say that I'm not a techie that knows all about Apple vs alternatives ... and say I'm interested in buying Apple because I like the aesthetics of the device or something. Is there anything actually explicit in Apple's marketing that makes it clear to the consumer that they are buying into a "locked garden" ? Part of this di…

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#937

Post by grok25 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #890
TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution... Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definite…

> Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. Why should that matter? > I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value If people prefer to install apps from Apple's store they're free to do so. That doesn't require them to prohibit other stores -- let the customer choose. > the huge variety of apps available definitely con…

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#938

Post by xethos »

noisem4ker wrote: post #922
xethos wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that measure, F-Droid is very close in that both have the majority of apps some people use (Aurora for you, F-Droid for me). Neither can compete with the Play store though, as only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background without user interaction (without root). For that matter, only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can un install apps from user's devices with no in…

> only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background Not anymore, since Android 12 (2021). https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...

You're right! I thought I'd heard something about that, but couldn't quite remember :) From your linked article though:

> in response to mounting pressure from Epic Games and government regulators

Just because it came out before the judgement doesn't mean it wasn't because of the court case. And frankly, needing to be sued to do the not-a-monopoly thing isn't exactly a great look.

Maybe I'm just grouchy because I'll never get to use it though - BlackBerry stopped making handsets, so I'm using either the last great physical keyboard (subjective, but true IMO) while being "stuck" on Android 8.1, or GNU+Linux à la Pinephone Pro.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#939

Post by hinkley »

hipadev23 wrote: post #445
hinkley wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.

Steam also takes 30%, and I’m not convinced they’re doing as much work for it as Apple.

That said, if I could not pay both Steam and Apple for Civ VI DLC, that would make me so happy

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#940

Post by hedora »

rpmisms wrote: post #648
hedora wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has already appealed this. I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.

The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with constitutionality and clearing "legal debt" (decisions outside the scope of the Court as chartered) from previous courts. I would be surprised if they take this one up.

The “legal debt” argument is absurd. They’ve been expanding their charter as much as they’ve been contracting it.

The majority is also openly corrupt, and will throw whatever they want out the window the second they are paid to do so.

Edit: Also, this idea that they should clear legal debt is a massive expansion of their charter. The system works as follows:

- Congress writes laws

- If they are vague, the courts set precedents that are irreversible except in the case of dire errors.

- If congress doesn’t like a precedent they clarify the law.

The current court is violating separation of powers by retroactively going against the actions taken by the last 50-100 years of legislators.

For instance, congress had decades to amend the constitution to say the fourth amendment doesn’t imply a right to privacy or women’s reproductive health care (including abortion) as Roe v. Wade established.

The current court greatly overstepped their authority when they ruled there is no right to privacy or reproductive health care.

This isn’t a minor oversight that congress forgot to consider. This is the justices deciding they have been elected dictators for life.

Post reply on HN