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

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#201

Post by HDThoreaun »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #191
HDThoreaun wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.

A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy…

> D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.

I could not disagree more.

> B. Android also charges 30%. It's actually better on iPhone, because developers making under $1M per year pay only 15%. On Android, everyone pays 30%. So you'd be paying more to Google on Android than on iPhone.

Android is bad too but at least you can get an app store without the fee.

> C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android.

Will I get refunded for the apps I bought? What about the macbook I bought because I entered the apple ecosystem?

> A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract.

How could I have known to look this up before it became a story?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#202

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Racing0461 wrote: post #162
LordKeren wrote: post #2

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shapes android going forward. Google didn’t just lose some point— they lost every point > The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. Th…

> The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?

Yes, as your own comment points out. Juries determine questions of fact. That can't (for the most part, there are of course exceptions) be revised by a judge. The applied penalty is a very different thing, and can be and usually is revised by the judge.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#203

Post by nerdix »

madeofpalk wrote: post #181
nerdix wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Google is punished because they made their platform more open. Well, that certainly will bode well for the future.

Google was punished for making deals to limit competition on their ‘open’ platform. Apple doesn’t really make these deals, so they weren’t punished for that.

So Google should have never allowed competition to begin with like Apple. That doesn't seem like a great answer to me.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#204

Post by tpush »

scarface_74 wrote: post #152
akira2501 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like you're trying to use the existence of some criminal acts as a justification for a different set of criminal acts. So, yes, when users literally own their own devices, it is difficult for the manufacturer to keep them perfectly secure without abusing monopoly power. The door also swings the other way here too, because malware has certainly existed _inside_ the Play Store, and it took _users_ to bring it…

You realize the same company suing Google and saying that allowing third party app stores is the same company that actually introduced a vulnerability by doing so? The entire value proposition of the App Store is the sandbox. But Android security sucks either way

Sandboxing had nothing to with any app store, and Android security empathetically doesn't suck.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#205

Post by jwells89 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #139
Spivak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.

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…

The way that the stock apps in AOSP are barebones and have been practically abandoned in favor of nicer closed Google-branded counterparts is also suggestive of them trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#206

Post by spiderice »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #130
dantheman wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.

How do I develop a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use without interacting with Apple?

Figure it out lol. That’s what Apple had to do. Why are you expecting a free pass to do what took them decades?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#207

Post by dagmx »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #196
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…

Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.

We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit.

Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that.

Anything beyond that is speculation.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#208

Post by LordKeren »

ravetcofx wrote: post #144
Spivak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.

And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?

No, this was not a court case about if Google has a phone OS monopoly. This was about if Google has a monopoly within the android ecosystem when it comes to app distribution. The jury ruled that they have a monopoly within android, and that they used this monopoly to stifle competition. They cited that Google used its influence as the makers of android to get phone manufacturers to not preinstall third party app stores, and paid off companies to not compete with Google Play

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#209

Post by stephenr »

jwells89 wrote: post #176
behnamoh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the walled garden model won against the (almost) open backyard model?

The way I’m reading it is that your platform needs to be totally open, desktop-OS-style, or manufactured as a single piece iOS/console style. Anything between those two is where the trouble comes in.

Isn't this just as simple as: if you claim to be open/allow something (alternative stores) you can't then do back room deals to prevent competition with them.

As someone else said: Google wants to make big loud claims about android being "open" but also wants to prevent anyone from competing with them.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#210

Post by mcphage »

cyberax wrote: post #188
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no…

> When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. That's exactly what Apple does. If you make a mobile app (for example, a presentation manager) you _have_ to support iOS, or you will go out of business. As a developer, you simply don't have a choice. You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely.

> 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.

Post reply on HN