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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#481

Post by SushiHippie »

devit wrote: post #432
SushiHippie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does google play store have compared to third party stores?

It runs as a privileged app. It uses that to install new applications and update applications installed by other app stores without the OS-level confirmation, probably can't be uninstalled on most Android OSes and perhaps some other things.

Auto updates can be implemented by other apps without prompt. [0] But you're right on initial install there is that installation confirmation prompt and other stores may be uninstalled.

[0] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#482

Post by hinkley »

daveguy wrote: post #420
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%.

I don't think this is the glowing review that you think it is.

I don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#483

Post by skydhash »

remram wrote: post #478
skydhash wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing: Apple: iOS only on iPhone. No way to get one without the other. Google: Android is open source and everyone can build their own hardware. Play Store is optional for manufacturers.

> Play Store is optional for manufacturers. Wouldn't that make it less of a monopoly then?

Not when you're paying for it to be non-optional.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#484

Post by bee_rider »

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…

Someone needs to go after Amazon for their monopoly in the Amazon Prime Video distribution market.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#485

Post by brandensilva »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #356
hedora wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.

Monopolies are not illegal. It’s leveraging the monopoly to exert force on adjacent markets that is. In the case here googles foul play is making side deals for preferential treatment against other app stores given their control over the handset operating system. Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. Thi…

Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#486

Post by remram »

skydhash wrote: post #483
remram wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Play Store is optional for manufacturers. Wouldn't that make it less of a monopoly then?

Not when you're paying for it to be non-optional.

Somebody else could pay them to put their store on? I don't understand. The fact that you get to make a deal for money seems strictly more free-market than the alternative.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#487

Post by saghm »

hinkley wrote: post #482
daveguy wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the glowing review that you think it is.

I don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.

The old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#488

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

modeless wrote: post #341
stephenr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last sentence almost gets the point: Apple never claimed iOS is an open platform open, nor made it available to other hardware vendors to use as they wish. This isn't Google being "punished for being more open" it's punishing them for claiming to be open and then doing a heap of hidden deals to prevent competition.

The point is that what Apple did is as bad or worse from the perspective of promoting competition in healthy markets, but it's more difficult to prove and quantify the harm, so it doesn't get punished.

On one of the platforms it was possible for epic to make a third party app store, and on another it wasn't.

That alone should tell any sane person which platform was 'worse'. It's absolutely wild and a failing of our legal system somewhere that the company with the worst effect actually won their own case.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#489

Post by loaph »

pankajdoharey wrote: post #460
dragonwriter wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ? I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".

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.

Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law.

Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#490

Post by voisin »

saghm wrote: post #487
hinkley wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.

The old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable

So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
Post reply on HN