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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#791

Post by enragedcacti »

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…

> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success

fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#792

Post by bryanlarsen »

throwaway18636 wrote: post #756
andy_ppp wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

As a dev, I absolutely prefer Apple’s model of locked-down walled garden. HN has no idea about all the grandmas and people who are busy with their jobs and kids, aka majority of the population. I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. My only dissatisfaction is that I can’t develop for iOS without buying a Mac and a developer account, but I a…

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- Ben Franklin

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#793

Post by root_axis »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #712
root_axis wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think likening Apple's stranglehold on users to the authority of a government helps your case.

I don't think likening Apple's authority over its own platforms to the government's stranglehold on citizens helps your case. Am I doing this right?

I didn't liken Apple to a government, you did.

> Am I doing this right?

No.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#794

Post by naasking »

mschuster91 wrote: post #736
TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well: - for employees, they're bad because monopolies (or cartels) suppress their freedom to go to a better employer. The best case…

> It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well

Some markets only support a natural monopoly though. If you forcefully break up every monopoly you'll always be in court, because after winning the case and breaking up a company, the next natural monopoly will form within a few years.

The best compromise is to only go after them if they're abusing their position. I agree the standards for that are too low though.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#795

Post by danaris »

enragedcacti wrote: post #791
TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?

Both those things can be true at the same time: it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#796

Post by danaris »

kibwen wrote: post #721
theshrike79 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exact same argument works for Nintendo, Sony PlayStation and the Xbox They all have closed application ecosystems and don’t allow third party stores.

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

I mean...I agree, but as things stand, they aren't.

It's one thing to say "this is how the law should be, so that Apple should have to open their platform"; it's quite another to say "as the law is right now, Apple should have to open their platform."

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#797

Post by gspencley »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #751
andy_ppp wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

Both are bad for consumers, but one is worse. A locked garden is a locked garden. But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better than a locked garden that advertises itself as open and then locks you in. Both are locked gardens; one is also false advertising.

> But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better

Out of curiosity, say that I'm not a techie that knows all about Apple vs alternatives ... and say I'm interested in buying Apple because I like the aesthetics of the device or something. Is there anything actually explicit in Apple's marketing that makes it clear to the consumer that they are buying into a "locked garden" ?

Part of this discussion has to do with definitions and what we're talking about, specifically. It's common in other industries to find yourself with some degree of vendor lock-in for "compatibility." I bought some high end Canon camera lenses, for example, so I have zero expectations that I can use those lenses with a Sony or a Nikon. I tend to buy Dewalt tools because I own Dewalt batteries etc.

Here we're talking about the "App Store." I don't know that it would register on the average non-techie's mind to assume they would have options ... but us techies know that the "locked garden" tends to mean "you're buying into the Apple ecosystem of products and will likely be stuck only buying Apple products for compatibility sake." Non techies might assume that because they assume that everything works that way. But is Apple making this extremely clear in their marketing so that people who don't assume would know up front? I'm genuinely curious since I don't buy Apple products.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#798

Post by surgical_fire »

nodamage wrote: post #674

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding why Apple won their case against Epic while Google lost theirs. The key reason Apple won their case is the fact that consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store. If they disagreed with that restriction then they could have made the choice to purchase another phone instead, but d…

> consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store

Even if Apple allowed other stores, consumers would still be able to choose to only download things from the Apple store.

Not having that option only harms consumers and benefits Apple who gets to apply an undue tax on everything.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#799

Post by croes »

meepmorp wrote: post #598
croes wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did other streaming services get the same deal?

That doesn't matter. Businesses aren't required to make the same deals with everyone.

But if one service gets a better deal than it's competitors then it's market impediment.

And Apple had previously explicitly stated in its defense that everyone got the same deal.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#800

Post by croes »

colechristensen wrote: post #566
croes wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

But Apple stated all got the same deal and had to pay the same.

But they lied.

Post reply on HN