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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#941

Post by rpmisms »

hedora wrote: post #940
rpmisms wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your point about Roe v Wade is precisely my point. The right to abortion is simply not in the Constitution. If Congress wants to pass that law, they may, and that would be legal according to the Supreme Court. Any honest legal scholar will tell you that Roe v Wade is a ridiculous Supreme Court decision, simply because it is sua sponte law.

The current court is not violating separation of power by overturning older laws. Your point about the court only overturning vague laws is completely false. The court exists as a check on Congress and the executive to hold them accountable to the texts which charter them. It is designed this way because overturning laws is far less harmful than upholding them. Government should do less, not more, and that is in our DNA as a country. The Supreme Court is acting as designed.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#942

Post by scrozart »

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 idea that only these 2 companies can provide a platform for secure apps is patently absurd. What's stopping another company other than these companies' stranglehold? If you want to say resources, I guarantee I'm not alone in a desire to use smaller vendors if they had a good track record of hosting secure apps.

I lean WAY left and still agree the free market would have solved this ages ago.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#943

Post by gitaarik »

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.

Yes, that is why the government needs to make better regulations so people are safeguarded against Google / Apple malware.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#944

Post by int_19h »

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 want a choice right up until the moment they need to do something but can't (e.g. install Fortnite).

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#945

Post by guru4consulting »

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.

yeah, agree that gatekeepers are needed. But why only Apple and Google should be the gatekeepers? why not others? why not crowd curated, open sourced gatekeeping for at least the nerdy folks? And we all know that the current gatekeeping is subpar quality.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#946

Post by guru4consulting »

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.

Let the customers have the choice to decide whether they want choice or not. Historically, more choices have always benefitted the common folks in the end.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#947

Post by abridges6523 »

ryao wrote: post #894
jojobas wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Have you used an AppStore? They’re both full of scammy apps

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#948

Post by pankajdoharey »

dragonwriter wrote: post #509
pankajdoharey wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.

> Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. I dunno, the fact that precedent is only binding when it is from a higher appellate court to a court subordinate to that appellate court isn't what I'd describe as "funny", just rather sensible. > Thus precedents mean nothing Not that I've seen any inconsistent legal ruling offered between the two cases. The fact that the bro…

Well 20 Yrs ago, Microsoft faced an Anti trust lawsuit in Federal court for shipping a browser, now Apple and Google both ship with a ton of software not just browser and restrict users from installing the software of their choice, yet Apple seems to be not facing any backlash. While Google lost for the same cause. This seems not only arbitrary but also shows the weakness in US court system and Arbitration by a Jury. The anti trust lawsuit against Microsoft could be a precedent for a case against both Apple and Google.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#949

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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 did read it, I’m just not sure what are you suggesting? A law obligating everyone who publishes their apps to any app store to also provide an .apk?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#950

Post by interskh »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #917
iforgotpassword wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ope…

[dead]
Post reply on HN