Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#61

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Pxtl wrote: post #9

Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.

> Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.

Probably not a sound lesson. People are rightly pointing out how little sense this makes -- you can exclude competitors but not disadvantage them?

But it was different cases in different courts. Now the higher courts will have to sort it out. They could very well side with Epic in both cases or neither of them.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#62

Post by midtake »

I have no problem believing that Googlers would have closed controversial deals over chat then deleted evidence thereof. Google seems to be full of internet thugs who consider themselves to exist on a greater plane. Ever since they used street view cars to harvest WiFi MAC addresses I have had this sense about them. The "fuck you, compile it yourself if you want checksums" approach to Chromium only further cements the idea that this is a company culture thing. I understand that it must feel exhilarating and powerful to work at El Goog, and I do envy them quite a bit and don't blame them much for their megalomania, but they should remember that envisioning themselves as God's chosen might be an incompatible mindset if the goal is to be sly.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#63

Post by scarface_74 »

omeid2 wrote: post #58
scarface_74 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you chose to buy a Tesla knowing they in advance?

As long as Tesla isn't approaching a dual-poly or worst a monopoly, that is on me. But if the choice is between two car manufacturers because your work parking, your banks' branch access, your governments' departments driveways, the city halls where a lot of events are organised, and just about anywhere you want to go is designed to allow only cars from these two car manufacturers, then knowing "in advance" is pointl…

You literally have a choice between hundreds of different Android manufacturers including ones that use a completely “open” version of Android.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#64

Post by _aavaa_ »

scarface_74 wrote: post #32
omeid2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more like complaining that Tesla wouldn't let you purchase electricity from a 3rd party that isn't sanctioned by Tesla.

And if you chose to buy a Tesla knowing they in advance?

We, as a society, have already made many such decision where certain kinds of goods/services cannot be legally sold and certain business practices are deemed illegal, even if people would choose to knowingly buy them in advanced.

It is unfortunately that the idea of people being allowed to do what they wish with the devices they purchased and, supposedly, own need is the side that needs justifying.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#65

Post by scarface_74 »

omeid2 wrote: post #60
scarface_74 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So define your legal definition of “treating customers fairly”

Well, the exact definition depends on the jurisdictions, but just about any market has fair trading regulations that at least outline what is considered unfair treatment.

Well this case is in the US. What are the “fair trading” laws that force companies to treat all customers equally

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#66

Post by omeid2 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #63
omeid2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Tesla isn't approaching a dual-poly or worst a monopoly, that is on me. But if the choice is between two car manufacturers because your work parking, your banks' branch access, your governments' departments driveways, the city halls where a lot of events are organised, and just about anywhere you want to go is designed to allow only cars from these two car manufacturers, then knowing "in advance" is pointl…

You literally have a choice between hundreds of different Android manufacturers including ones that use a completely “open” version of Android.

First, the main problem here is that Google is activelly colluding with manufacturers to keep the Google Play monopoly, second, and more importantly, many Apps doesn't work without Google Services or whatever it is called now on Android, some apps from Banks doesn't run on "root" or "open" version of Android even with Google Services.

So it is not that simple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#67

Post by freeAgent »

Pxtl wrote: post #9

Lesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.

If the promised freedom doesn’t actually exist, then you have open totalitarian control vs. obfuscated totalitarian control. They both suck, but at least one’s honest about it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#68

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Apple is that while they don’t have a monopoly on cellphones, they seem to have a monopoly on good cellphone experiences. Your choice is a couple of platforms that are closed but works decently well, and other more open platforms that are much more chaotic and poorer user experiences. Linux phones or android phones not running Google’s stack being examples of the latter.

It feels silly to me to assess based on number of companies playing. If the market were three or four companies all behaving exactly like Apple, there still is a clear & present need for government intervention, a clear "consumer harm" by creating technological intermediary overlords with total control over information technology. Apple defenders love pointing out that there is choice, that folks can go to Android. B…

> Apple defenders love pointing out that there is choice, that folks can go to Android. But what if Android were just as lawful-evil malevolent a force?

There were non-Google and non-Apple choices out there (I used Windows Phone for awhile and kind of liked it), and people still didn't want them. I personally don't care what other people buy, but I don't want the choice taken away from me to buy into what I see as a much saner platform than the free liberalized non-evil overlord choice that would be forced on me for what people would claim for my own good. Consumer choice should really account for something here.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#69

Post by scarface_74 »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #64
scarface_74 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you chose to buy a Tesla knowing they in advance?

We, as a society, have already made many such decision where certain kinds of goods/services cannot be legally sold and certain business practices are deemed illegal, even if people would choose to knowingly buy them in advanced. It is unfortunately that the idea of people being allowed to do what they wish with the devices they purchased and, supposedly, own need is the side that needs justifying.

Yes because people not being able to run Linux on their Apple Pencil is such a severe societal problem that we need government intervention.

Or could it be that geeks hate when people make their own choices based on their own free will and other people’s choices aren’t aligned to a relatively few geeks

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#70

Post by scarface_74 »

omeid2 wrote: post #66
scarface_74 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally have a choice between hundreds of different Android manufacturers including ones that use a completely “open” version of Android.

First, the main problem here is that Google is activelly colluding with manufacturers to keep the Google Play monopoly, second, and more importantly, many Apps doesn't work without Google Services or whatever it is called now on Android, some apps from Banks doesn't run on "root" or "open" version of Android even with Google Services. So it is not that simple.

And what can you do with banking apps that you can’t do by going to their website?

Beliefs have consequences. If you are one of the relatively few that value “openness” when the market has spoken otherwise, you have to deal with the consequences

Post reply on HN