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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#561

Post by botalert »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #448
clnq wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it migh…

> Things will even out in the US over time, I think. Note, US Supreme Court recently overturned 50 years of precedent of Roe vs. Wade.

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#562

Post by scarface_74 »

andersa wrote: post #521
scarface_74 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you bought a device knowing its limitations when you had other options…

The point is that these artificial "limitations" should not be allowed to exist. We already figured this out for most consumer goods decades ago, it's time to do the same for computers.

Why do you care if other people - 60% in the US could care less about “open ecosystems” when you have a choice not to buy one?

And have you actually paid attention to the trade off of “openness” on PCs? Viruses, malware, ransomware, etc?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#563

Post by johnnyanmac »

xethos wrote: post #299
rpgwaiter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though

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 Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.

That sounds horrible. Why can a store decide to delete an app with no prior notice?

But it does seem Google has given more freedom to other apps to install apps. I guess it comes down to if that's still too many clicks or too fear mongering to count as "competitive".

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#564

Post by kelnos »

paulddraper wrote: post #511
bee_rider wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, does the site report this kind of info? That’s interesting, where? It would also be neat to know mobile vs desktop, and how’s the Linux population doing here.

I'm making some reasonable inferences based on overall tech.

Not sure that's reasonable. A quick search suggests current US market share is 58% iOS to 41% Android. If we assume HN readers are a representative sample of US mobile phone owners, then sure, you'd easily be right.

But of course there are plenty of HN users from outside the US. Another quick search suggests Android is around 66% in Europe, and iOS is only at 33%. Asia is ever more tilted toward Android, at 79% to 20%.

Even then, that assumes HN users' mobile OS preference mirrors that of the country/continent they are from, which feels a little unlikely to me; my gut feeling is that HN users to prefer Android at a greater rate (even if by not that much) than the rest of the people where they live.

But let's go back to assuming that HN's readership mirrors the mobile OS market share from country/continent they're from. It's not hard to drop that US 58% iOS number below 50% by subtracting US users from the total and adding users from literally anywhere else, where iOS usage is much lower.

Regardless, though, I think even if somehow the iOS numbers are still higher than the Android numbers, I think it's probably not that case that obviously everyone who uses an iPhone would side with Apple in this matter. Many/most would, but still likely not enough for it to be accurate to say that more than 50% of HN are a bunch of Apple apologists who will side with them in a legal matter and against Google in the exact same legal matter.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#565

Post by downWidOutaFite »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!

> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder…

ipso facto, if the monopolist doesn't even let a market exist then by definition they're not abusing it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#566

Post by colechristensen »

croes wrote: post #550
colechristensen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though? Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition. Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash? These are just different issues.

>Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though? Towards other streaming services? Yes.

Giving preferential treatment to one customer at the expense of other customers is not anticompetitive behavior as defined by any law I'm aware of.

The law doesn't say you have to give everybody the same deal just because it's "unfair" to others.

The monopoly/antitrust/etc. laws are about misusing a position of power for your own benefit at the expense of competitors. Apple doesn't have to be "fair" to Netflix vs Max vs Disney Plus.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#567

Post by kelnos »

tortoise_in wrote: post #306
hackernewds wrote: post #267

I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple

Because apple is not even considered here. They are more closed I guess. Android shopport open source and Linux based also maybe the case.

You may be missing some context; there was a similar court case between Apple and Epic, and Apple won. While opinions on HN were mixed, I seem to recall more people coming out praising Apple and demonizing Epic.

Apple is very much considered here.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#568

Post by kelnos »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #457
obviouslynotme wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is just as sleezy as Google but doesn't have as much power and reach. If I don't want to, I don't have to interact with Apple at all. Google is much harder to avoid, impossible in some domains like email.

You have plenty of non-Google email options, including iCloud mail from Apple.

I use Fastmail, but nearly everyone I send/receive email to/from has an @gmail.com address.

Google still has the content of all of my email. Well, I guess except for the transactional stuff that comes from automated sources.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#569

Post by dwaite »

hackernewds wrote: post #276
LordKeren wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stor…

um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled

Google created the opportunity for "markets" of android alternative app stores and alternative in-app payments, but then leveraged their control of other areas (such as OEM distribution of android and play services, revenue sharing, marketing) to squash competition in these areas.

Apple on the other hand has tried very hard to make sure such perceptions of markets do not exist; for instance, the requirements they gave to Microsoft for shipping a game subscription service on iOS is that the games themselves had to be in Apple's App Store, pass App Store review, and take payments for DLC or currency via in-app purchase.

This is also IMO why Apple will never actually lock down macOS so that things are only available in the Mac App Store. Whether or not it is a good idea, they can't defend it legally.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#570

Post by kelnos »

7e wrote: post #502
nequo wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google only has the monopoly in Android app distribution. Apple has it in iOS app distribution.

That’s like saying Porsche has a monopoly on all red mid-engine German sports coupes. Apps run on pocket computing devices with phone and data connectivity. Two operating systems compete in that space.

No, that's not like that at all. Can we stop making really poor car analogies that don't actually represent the issue at hand?

Regardless, at this point you're arguing against the court here. Google lost; they have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Maybe that'll get overturned on appeal, but I hope not.

Post reply on HN