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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#741

Post by UncleMeat »

scarface_74 wrote: post #233
tpush wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I just had a coworker say that he surreptitiously installed an app on his son’s phone that allowed him to see everything his son was doing remotely and listen in to his son’s conversations. He showed it to us in action.

Compare this to a desktop. The desktop spyware will be even more capable than the mobile spyware.

And these sorts of child-tracking (and sadly, abused-partner-tracking) apps exist on both Android and iOS platforms.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#742

Post by sickcodebruh »

sidlls wrote: post #723
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

So is Apple the building that contains a Starbucks or the business known as Starbucks? It seems like it’s both — that is a problem. Is Starbucks charging its customers steep costs for entering the building? Where does the existing App Store with its large transaction fees and restrictions around billing fit into this analogy?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#743

Post by jakkos »

sidlls wrote: post #723
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

No but it's not just going to a competitor's donut shop, it's losing your family group chat, cloud storage, apps you've paid for, integration with your laptop, tablet, earbuds, smart watch, etc, etc. Apple has on purpose (there are verified transcripts of execs talking about it) built a walled garden ecosystem that is incredibly hard to leave.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#744

Post by danbruc »

sidlls wrote: post #723
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

I think it is more lake the mayor allowing his son to open a Starbucks in the city but preventing everyone else from opening a Peet's because he is concerned about how that might negatively affect the image of the city in the eyes of coffee enthusiasts as he has no control over coffee prices and quality there.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#745

Post by ralfd »

m45t3r wrote: post #698
robertlagrant wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts. Isn't the resolution the same in each case? If you have an iPhone and you want to install an app from another store, you have to buy another phone. It's the same with these deals with Android, just overt.

In most cases I can buy a donut from a competitor's and eat inside the coffee shop as long as I buy some product from the said coffee shop. Apple prevents that I bring an outside donut from competitor's, while Android allows it. That is basically the difference.

I don't know what restaurants you frequent, but I can't think of anyone being okay with bringing outside meals or beverages. Probably you are just not kicked out because staff is not noticing or apathetic.

I only know of the concept of Corkage, where you pay the restaurant a fee if you bring your own wine to drink:

https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2626/corkage-fee-guide...

> A corkage fee is the price charged to guests who choose to bring their own bottle of wine to a restaurant. Corkage fees usually exist at restaurants that already serve wine. The practice of allowing guests to bring their own wine is considered a courtesy to guests. … The average corkage fee ranges from $10 to $40 per bottle but may be as high as $100 or more.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#746

Post by ralfd »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #733
kibwen wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a gotcha; consoles should be required to support homebrew games as well.

Interesting question - since they charge a flat fee and revenue sharing model based on sales it is not like Google who had a secret deal with Spotify and Netflix.

Honest questions: I thought Playstation and Xbox had "secret" deals? They have their own studios, they buy exclusives, timed exclusives, special promotions, games optimized for platform A but not for B etc?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#747

Post by thesuperbigfrog »

kmeisthax wrote: post #591
onli wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code i…

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "h…

>> we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it.

There's a name for that condition: corruption

It is a societal disease that is vicious and hard to get rid of. It makes bad situations worse even when everyone says that they agree on a solution and want to make it happen.

Antitrust laws are one way to prevent and maybe even remove corruption, but they only work if the people writing the laws and enforcing the laws are not corrupt.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#748

Post by simondotau »

jakkos wrote: post #743
sidlls wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't preventing anyone from buying a competitor's donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That's not monopolistic behavior.

No but it's not just going to a competitor's donut shop, it's losing your family group chat, cloud storage, apps you've paid for, integration with your laptop, tablet, earbuds, smart watch, etc, etc. Apple has on purpose (there are verified transcripts of execs talking about it) built a walled garden ecosystem that is incredibly hard to leave.

Yes, the other coffee shop doesn’t remember my name and my regular morning order. I’ll have to start afresh.

Seems to me the analogy holds.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#749

Post by michaelt »

ralfd wrote: post #738
pentae wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated

Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.

Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off.

(Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#750

Post by bryanrasmussen »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #695
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...

> So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution... Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definite…

definitely they view it that way, as well as viewing the app review process as something that adds customer value. I mean they were quite clear on all that from day 1, that they thought they were solving customer problems. And of course when you think you have solved customer problems you expect to get rewarded, and then some years down the road your solution isn't that great anymore but you just don't want to let go of any of that sweet, sweet reward.
Post reply on HN