31 ms·

Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

• bomewish 3y ago
  Marco Arment has the most interesting take on this, and it's made me change my mind on the topic. The whole post is short and worth reading -- https://marco.org/2021/09/13/future-of-the-app-store https://marco.org/2021/09/13/future-of-the-app-store -- but the tl;dr is: lots of app stores run by different companies would be worse both for users and developers; Apple is not nearly as bad as Facebook in terms of surveillance, invasions of privacy, dark patterns; and basically 'better the devil you know.' I'm convinced -- surprisingly. Essentially a free-for-all might lead to anarchic piracy rather than an extractive one-party state. Marco prefers the latter and his argument seems kinda compelling.
• LordKeren 3y ago
  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. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too. This may wind up being an enormous shake up.
  • Spivak 3y ago
    And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.
    • gjsman-1000 3y ago
      To be fair, that's literally called a video game console.
      • tantalor 3y ago
        What is?
        • gjsman-1000 3y ago
          > Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" That's what a video game console is, technically speaking. It's a completely locked down environment which is curated tightly. > but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive. That's called the antitrust investigation into Microsoft Windows; or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." Edit: I'm actually OK with this, even legally, because I view devices as being means to an end for an experience, which is also how I think most consumers view devices. When viewed that way, we really have three major "buckets" of devices if you will: "Computers", "Gaming", "Phones". The "Computers" market is a race in most minds between Windows and Mac (and thus Windows gets hit with antitrust investigations). The "Phones" market is once again a 2-cart race between Android and iPhone (and this time, Android gets the antitrust investigations). The "Games" market is a 4-cart race between 3 console manufacturers and the PC, with 2 additional smaller carts called Cloud Gaming and the Smartphone (which, themselves have 3 and 2 carts respectively) - thus, no interest in investigating anyone there. However, if gaming didn't exist on the PC and was strictly Sony v. Nintendo, it would totally be investigated.
          • Spivak 3y ago
            > or the complaints about Apple's "sherlocking." And they get away with it because Apple isn't competing with anyone within their own ecosystem; it's not a market. Really is a neat little bit of lawyering, iOS and all apps within aren't competing with each other hence the rule about too many apps with similar features, they're competing as a unit with other computing platforms.
  • thelastparadise 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • Racing0461 3y ago
    > The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?
    • plus 3y ago
      The judge cannot override the jury's ruling, so unless Google's appeal succeeds, the ruling stays.
      • brokenodo 3y ago
        The Court technically can if Google asked for JMOL prior the case going to the jury. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50
      • jcranmer 3y ago
        A judgement notwithstanding the verdict allows a judge to throw out a jury verdict.
    • LordKeren 3y ago
      Epic didn’t sue for damages. They sued to get the rules changed. The jury did not award Epic any money. The judge will be deciding how Google must remedy the situation
    • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Yes, as your own comment points out. Juries determine questions of fact. That can't (for the most part, there are of course exceptions) be revised by a judge. The applied penalty is a very different thing, and can be and usually is revised by the judge.
      • patmorgan23 3y ago
        Usually what happens is a point of law gets appealed and one of the chances of action gets thrown out and the penalty that was tied to it.
    • 3y ago
  • rkagerer 3y ago
    Finally. I'm glad this caught up to them. I used to have a lot of warm fuzzies for Google, but they've become downright despicable in so many respects. The app store has leaned toward unfair for publishers (and users) for years, I hope something good comes of this.
    • jmoak3 3y ago
      Like I've been saying. We're not incentivizing the stewardship of open platforms. Apple will die before they open their garden. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731541#37732596 I don't want to be pithy and low-effort here. I'm confused on why Google lost while Apple won.
      • ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        As other comments have said, Google's was a jury trial, Apple's not. And, even if neither were jury trials, as another another comment said, the justice system is not a hivemind: the way your case goes can and does depend on the judge/jury passing judgement. That being said, Apple isn't stupid: they probably know as of now, even if they managed to believe it didn't before, that this monopoly on distribution has a shelf life. So I'm interested to see how they expand iOS app distribution to counter the claims of monopolistic behavior in the future, not unlike the way Microsoft supported other browsers financially for years to stop the FTC suing them into the dirt over Internet Explorer. I'm generally an Apple fan, and to be totally honest, if there was another app distribution system on iOS, I doubt I would touch it. I appreciate the baseline level of quality and curation in the App Store and have no desire to leave it. I see the low-effort dreck of the Play store by comparison as undesirable. That being said, I don't grudge anyone for pointing out Apple's position in that space is uncompetitive. It is. I have no interest in alternatives but that doesn't mean alternatives shouldn't exist.
        • jmoak3 3y ago
          Thank you for the explanation. I'm also an Apple fan and would not leave the App Store easily, however I am unhappy that I am forever unable to do so. I think rulings against these companies are warranted, but I want an end game where iPhone is closer to Android's best aspects, not where Android drops them to mimic iPhone's. Google could easily stop being as "anti-competitive" by not releasing another public update of Android again, launching a new "Pixel Play Store" available on Pixel, and putting all of their effort into this platform going forward. The world would be a worse place for this, and Google would likely make more services revenue. I have a feeling developers would abandon the other manufacturer's platforms in a microsecond. If Google's not allowed to have influence over the default search/apps installed on 3rd party android phones made by Samsung/HTC, why would Google even bother with the business? They only ran it to get more mobile search users into Google Search IMO. I'm sure Google deserves to get smacked for the worst of their behavior but Apple walking away (for now) without a scratch is sending a stark message, at least to my eyes. You say Apple's time with this behavior is limited, and I can only hope you're right. Being positive, hopefully down the line, this case can be used as a wedge to peel Apple's grip open.
  • MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?
    • yieldcrv 3y ago
      there is no sanction in the US for monopolies if the market chooses that, you just cant do anticompetitive things in the process or while you have one so simply being in the exact same position is not enough, the details of exactly how you navigate it are more important with that in mind, Apple is still vulnerable based on their behavior, but its not a slam dunk by mere nature of being in the same position for example, revenue splits were always high in app stores, they didnt jack them up higher and in fact have come down periodically as if there was competition, and the market still chose to use them. app stores have always had heavy handed selective moderation approaches, it didnt get worse its gotten better in some regards. makes it very hard to prove antitrust just because the market kept subjecting itself to these
      • tomComb 3y ago
        But they are not in the exact same position - Apple has a much tighter grip on their App Store than Google, and they don’t even need to: they make money selling the devices.
        • StressedDev 3y ago
          Apple’s app store policies product users. One thing Apple has done which is very good is regulate iPhone app decelopers.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • dgreensp 3y ago
          I'm sure that's how Google feels! "Unfairly competing in the 'Android app distribution market'?? We are Android!!" This is one of those legal situations I really can't wrap my head around, though. The point is the situations are different enough it would have to be a different legal framework for Apple's situation, and a different day in court. I think a ruling like this is good. We need more checks on Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
  • hedora 3y ago
    Google has already appealed this. I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.
    • rpmisms 3y ago
      The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with constitutionality and clearing "legal debt" (decisions outside the scope of the Court as chartered) from previous courts. I would be surprised if they take this one up.
      • hedora 3y ago
        The “legal debt” argument is absurd. They’ve been expanding their charter as much as they’ve been contracting it. The majority is also openly corrupt, and will throw whatever they want out the window the second they are paid to do so. Edit: Also, this idea that they should clear legal debt is a massive expansion of their charter. The system works as follows: - Congress writes laws - If they are vague, the courts set precedents that are irreversible except in the case of dire errors. - If congress doesn’t like a precedent they clarify the law. The current court is violating separation of powers by retroactively going against the actions taken by the last 50-100 years of legislators. For instance, congress had decades to amend the constitution to say the fourth amendment doesn’t imply a right to privacy or women’s reproductive health care (including abortion) as Roe v. Wade established. The current court greatly overstepped their authority when they ruled there is no right to privacy or reproductive health care. This isn’t a minor oversight that congress forgot to consider. This is the justices deciding they have been elected dictators for life.
        • rpmisms 3y ago
          Your point about Roe v Wade is precisely my point. The right to abortion is simply not in the Constitution. If Congress wants to pass that law, they may, and that would be legal according to the Supreme Court. Any honest legal scholar will tell you that Roe v Wade is a ridiculous Supreme Court decision, simply because it is sua sponte law. The current court is not violating separation of power by overturning older laws. Your point about the court only overturning vague laws is completely false. The court exists as a check on Congress and the executive to hold them accountable to the texts which charter them. It is designed this way because overturning laws is far less harmful than upholding them. Government should do less, not more, and that is in our DNA as a country. The Supreme Court is acting as designed.
  • toss1 3y ago
    >>"Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform." —— Wilson White, VP, Government Affairs & Public Policy That's the most he can say? Pretty damn low bar to beat Apple's walled garden at 'openness'. Sheesh With losing on EVERY point, there may not be a lot of room to appeal, as appeals rarely overturn findings of fact. But it will create delay. Maybe we'll ultimately get some relief.
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    Most likely outcome is probably a consent decree like Microsoft's. Google agrees to publicly document all APIs for Android app store capabilities, and to refrain from certain kinds of business deals, and some mechanism of enforcement, perhaps embedded monitors at Goog or an onerous reporting regime. Then, with a level playing field we see if Google's Play Store can compete with other app stores, and whether Google can give Android a great app store management experience to end users.
  • bee_rider 3y ago
    Someone needs to go after Amazon for their monopoly in the Amazon Prime Video distribution market.
• throwaway87543 3y ago
  Pardon me, didn’t Apple win the exact same suit by Epic? Apple’s app store is fine, but Google’s isn’t?
  • account-5 3y ago
    Came here to say something similar.
  • ls612 3y ago
    Two different cases, 2 different juries (OK the Apple one was a bench trial but you get my point) and neither one is binding precedent over the other.
    • osti 3y ago
      But can Epic appeal then against Apple?
      • account-5 3y ago
        Were I Google I'd be appealling on the grounds Apple got away with it.
        • LordKeren 3y ago
          They tried to use the apple case to get this suit dismissed. The judge already declined to dismiss the Google case
        • kevindamm 3y ago
          Did Apple pay companies not to deploy their own app stores? Oh, right, they were restrictive about even an app that had the same functionality as an Apple-made app, let alone competing app stores. This might get interesting.
        • scarface_74 3y ago
          Well, if Google is willing to stop licensing Android to third parties and only sell Pixels, I’m sure they could
• neverrroot 3y ago
  A starting point, Apple should be next.
  • jonny_eh 3y ago
    Epic lost to Apple, including on appeal. This will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.
    • neverrroot 3y ago
      Things can still change, but strong headwinds.
      • jonny_eh 3y ago
        It's absolutely untenable for there to be a law that applies to one company but not a competitor doing an identical thing.
        • throwaway98797 3y ago
          that’s true the facts are different between apple and google
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
        • meepmorp 3y ago
          Maybe it's not an identical thing when you get into the details.
          • TulliusCicero 3y ago
            Yeah, Apple is even more restrictive and monopolistic, which somehow means they're in the clear.
    • 3y ago
• wnevets 3y ago
  Didn't Apple effectively win their lawsuit while having an actual monopoly on iPhone app installs? Can someone explain why Google lost despite android having all sorts of way to install apps while bypassing the play store?
  • meepmorp 3y ago
    I'm guessing it's because this was a jury trial and Apple's wasn't.
    • wnevets 3y ago
      Practically I get that but legally I don't get it. Aren't we virtually dealing with the same evidence, arguments and laws?
      • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        Yeah - but give the same case to 10 different juries, and you'll get different decisions. Probably will get at least one outlier with different 10 judges, too.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • kyruzic 3y ago
          There's two possible decisions the jury could make, and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. Obviously not perfect but a lot better than you describe.
          • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
            > and the jury is composed of a group of people who are chosen by both sides to prevent it from being a biased decision. No, it's not. It's chosen at random, and they have a chance to rule out people they think would be biased - and you can't just toss anyone for any reason. It's not like Google can toss anyone they see playing a game or using an iPhone or something. And it's definitely not like Google gets to pick 6 Google groupies and Epic picks 6 Epic groupies to be on the jury.
• whalesalad 3y ago
  So does this mean they can go back after Apple and win, using this as precedent?
  • account-5 3y ago
    Google Google appeal using apple's case as precedent?
    • scarface_74 3y ago
      Apple doesn’t license its OS to third parties
  • favorited 3y ago
    Cases in US district courts don't create binding precedent.
    • LegitShady 3y ago
      but the appeals might?
      • MBCook 3y ago
        Only if the Supreme Court takes it and what they rule on would apply to Apple.
      • favorited 3y ago
        An appellate ruling would precedential within that court's circuit, yes. One of the most common reasons that SCOTUS grants cert is when there is a "circuit split," where multiple appellate court circuits have decided differently on the same legal issue. All this is beside the point, because if Epic wants to overturn the ruling in Epic v. Apple, they would (and have) appeal that case. These 2 cases are not the same, and it's entirely possible they end up winning one and losing the other.
  • LordKeren 3y ago
    No— just like how Google was not able to use the apple case as a precedent to have this one dismissed
• lucasyvas 3y ago
  So they will take this back to Apple and probably win then? To me this means Epic has unilaterally won. Android was the more open of the two. We all know from the personal computer how it should be. Apple and Google are on borrowed time.
  • superb_dev 3y ago
    Google did engage in anticompetitive behavior to make their App Store dominant over other third party App Stores
    • ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      Google app store is only anti competitive if you define the market as 'android apps'. Perhaps you stretch this to just 'android app stores'. So if we define a similar market of 'ios apps', where there's literally 1 single choice of app store, how exactly is that not anticompetitive?
  • mikhailt 3y ago
    Not likely, they aren’t the same type of case. Apple didn’t force anyone else to install their App Store. That’s where Google differs and what Epic proved they did. They can’t prove Apple did anything like that since Apple doesn’t offer iOS to anyone else.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • xdennis 3y ago
      I probably don't know about the case but this sounds completely backwards. Aren't Google (not that I like them) the ones which do allow third party app stores and Apple do not? So they're being punished FOR allowing choice?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• shippintoboston 3y ago
  [dead]
• e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
  I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything. Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.
  • dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    Third party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.
    • rpgwaiter 3y ago
      AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though
      • xethos 3y ago
        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 uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.
        • johnnyanmac 3y ago
          >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".
• kulahan 3y ago
  For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if someone more knowledgeable comes along!
  • Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    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!
    • EA-3167 3y ago
      I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
      • cyberax 3y ago
        > I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does. Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.
        • dantheman 3y ago
          The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.
• rsweeney21 3y ago
  This is huge! I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. Might be time to revisit them...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • dvngnt_ 3y ago
    > This is huge! > I've had so many business ideas that I've killed at the idea stage because giving 30% of revenue to Apple or Google made it not viable. > Might be time to revisit them... name 3?
    • fbdab103 3y ago
      If the profitability situation is about to change, seems like a poor time to reveal killer ideas.
    • OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      Anywhere where you exist on top of someone else's service is basically killed by a 30% margin. To use an example I worked on a while back, dynamic Minecraft server hosting: Taking advantage of the fact that most small servers need much less than 100% uptime, you realize that if you dynamically spin up and down these servers, you can offer substantially better use-based pricing. You're basically an AWS reseller in this scenario, so there's a hard floor in what you how much you can charge, because VPSs cost money, but you're competing against "leave the server on 24/7", which is your upper cap. Unfortunately, unlike those "Up 24/7" servers, you need a good way for your customers to spin the server up and down. A phone app seems like a good way to do that, until you realize that 30% of that revenue potential would be forked over to the app stores. 100% AWS uptime, at cost -> your competitor's price 10-15% AWS uptime -> your marginal costs 50-60% AWS uptime -> maximum price you can really charge while differentiating yourself on price 25-32% AWS uptime -> subtract your costs and google's cut from that maximum price When you start factoring costs like customer acquisition, it starts getting very, very tight. 30% profit can make for a pretty healthy business, especially in businesses where your prices and costs can be predictably coupled. But a business with a 30% profit margin that has to pay 30% is a failed business.
• shmerl 3y ago
  Apple should be punished for this more than Google. Google doesn't ban competing browsers, Apple does.
  • vlozko 3y ago
    It’s because Google did a lot of things that Apple didn’t that was found to be anti-competitive. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
    • shmerl 3y ago
      I'm sure they did their own stuff, but Apple got away with a very nasty one. So I don't think competition law works. Results look completely random, like tossing a coin.
      • martimarkov 3y ago
        Being sued for different things - yeah you tend to get different results. And what is the definition of nasty here? It's very subjective. Apple doesn't own the mobile market and are below 50% control of it so they are not really a monopoly. I'm also not sure how you can use anti-trust or anti-monopoly against them when they have been found again and again to not be a monopoly.
        • shmerl 3y ago
          Banning competing browsers is illegal and Apple should have never gotten away with it. Not only an abstract absolute monopoly is a problem. Apple has a lot of leverage on the industry and is causing harm to the market with anti-competitive behavior.
    • jefftk 3y ago
      Yes, but in a weird way: Apple doesn't allow competition for phone manufacturing for their ecosystem, so the equivalent of "deals with manufacturers" are entirely internal. Fostering a phone ecosystem that overall has more competition has hurt Google here.
• anotherhue 3y ago
  I suggest that this actually makes Sweeney _more_ historically influential than Carmack. They both have remarkably similar origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer)
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • flykespice 3y ago
    Now, lets not undermine one under another both are influential on their own on the video gaming industry, on one hand Tim sweeney founded Epic Games and created Unreal engine, on the other Carmack made one of the most influential first person shooters of all time that defined the genre.
• reilly3000 3y ago
  Assuming this ruling stands, and the pattern is extended to Apple as well, what does a multi-app-store world look like? How does one "install" a new app store, what sort of permissions does it get? Who can start a new app store? What risks does a user accept when they do business with a 3rd party store? I for one would welcome a mobile store from Valve, Epic etc, especially if I could have my purchases work on multiple mobile platforms.
  • fallingknife 3y ago
    It looks like the world before app stores. Anybody can develop software and sell it to anyone, who can then install it on any compatible device.
    • astrange 3y ago
      You couldn't easily install software on phones before smartphone app stores; the app developer had to make a deal with individual carriers to allow it.
      • redserk 3y ago
        Not really. At least Windows Mobile and PalmOS let you install anything very easily. It was just difficult initially finding apps.
        • MBCook 3y ago
          It was POSSIBLE. Was it easy enough for the average user? I saw plenty of people who never installed anything because it was PITA. There’s a reason the App Store revolutionized things.
      • cromka 3y ago
        Not really, if you consider Symbian pre-smartphone OS.
      • fallingknife 3y ago
        I really meant before smartphones and the way software works on desktops/laptops.
• trinsic2 3y ago
  Wait what about apple?
• bilekas 3y ago
  I'm not sure how I feel about this, on the one hand monopolies are obviously very anti consumer, but I do see Google's point of securing the already questionable appStore. But surely there's a happy medium in there to simply allow 3rd party payment processing?
  • aaomidi 3y ago
    Why is there this assumption that third party apps are going to be so unsafe? We already run untrusted executable code in the form of JavaScript. Why does the android system need to be different? Why can’t we say the OS needs sandboxing, api permissions, etc. I really don’t want the only thing protecting my phone being the fact that a human sometimes reviews an app.
    • ethbr1 3y ago
      Seriously, if the Play Store is what's protecting Android phones... then Google's OS devs fucked up.
    • foolfoolz 3y ago
      because this is what computing used to be. you would download some random executable off some random website and hope you didn’t get infected with malware except the stakes are much higher on your phone than your 1998 computer because your phone is more powerful: your phone has more personal data, financial info, and can consume costly telecom resources
      • aaomidi 3y ago
        So random websites I go to are now gonna be able to take over my phone? Why aren’t we seeing this scale of attacks using JavaScript?
        • Shish2k 3y ago
          Javascript was designed to be secure-by-default, and it takes a vast amount of effort to keep it that way Native apps were designed to be powerful-by-default, and the amount of effort to bolt security on after the fact is orders of magnitude more
• iscrewyou 3y ago
  Since the post links to the verge article and everyone here keeps mentioning the Apple trial, here’s a link to the epic and Apple lawsuit verdict: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-trial-fortnite-judge-yvonne-gonzalez-rogers-final-ruling-injunction-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-tri...
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• stale2002 3y ago
  Oh hey, will you look at that. I remember arguing with people for years about these cases. The thing with the app store situations is that Epic/app developers only need to win a single time vs the app stores, whereas the app stores need to win every battle. Either it will be through existing anti trust laws, or through new laws being created, or through the same thing happening in any major country in the world. Because as soon as there is a single win, the whole app store system all crumbles and developers win. I wonder what the excuse will be next over these app stores.
  • rglover 3y ago
    If I ran Apple or Google (and was running with the "customer safety" angle): If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. Just like they have guidelines for their own store's apps, have the same guidelines for third-party stores. It puts the onus on third-party stores to make sure they're just as stringent as the parent store/platform. If you fail to be compliant per a specific set of rules (not ambiguous), your store gets booted. If it's a purely a money concern, charge a "store developer" fee on an annual basis and tier it out based on number of sales/customers.
    • wvenable 3y ago
      > If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. Defeats the purpose of third party app stores. The only reason I even have one installed (F-droid) is for apps that don't play by Google's rules and standards. "Yes, you can have multiple app stores as long as they're all exactly the same."
    • stale2002 3y ago
      > If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. I am not sure if you even posted on the right comment or if you even read the article. This whole post is about how actually those rules are illegal and therefore we don't have to follow them. The whole point is that actually we can use the law to force Google or Apple to change their rules, or forcibly allow developers to not follow them. > your store gets booted. If Google or Apple doesn't follow the law then they will be forced to do so by the government, and fined large amounts of money. The rules of the US government overrule the rules of companies. > If I ran Apple or Google (and was running with the "customer safety" angle): I don't think you understand. Your whole post is basically just saying "these are the rules". Yes, those are the rules. But those rules can be illegal. Just saying "yep. These are the rules" is a vacuous statement that is unrelated to the crux of the argument, which is that those rules can be illegal and the government can force Apple or Google to change them.
• andersa 3y ago
  Absolutely fantastic news. Now extend it to Apple.
  • scarface_74 3y ago
    In that case consoles from Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo? Why stop there? Smart TV manufacturers? Cars?
    • andersa 3y ago
      Yes. Given time. Take down all of these stupid walled gardens. People should own their devices and the manufacturer should have absolutely no say in what applications they install, from where they get those, or who they do business with, and should not have the ability to tax all usage of the device post-sale. You know, just like PCs. Since you brought up the TV analogy - how would you feel about being forced to pay a Samsung tax every time you buy new groceries for your Smart Fridge? That's basically what Apple does. So they can, respectfully, get fucked.
      • xuki 3y ago
        Yes please. Lock it up for consumers all they want but let people who want to tinker, tinker.
        • scarface_74 3y ago
          And you can do that today by buying an Android device
          • ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
            Why do you defend apples 30% tax on ios apps, and being the sole approver of what apps you can install on your device?
            • andersa 3y ago
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Payola, LLC.
• Pxtl 3y ago
  The lesson is loud and clear: if you want to destroy normal consumer protections, do it using technologic dictatorship like Apple and the gaming console companies, not through an open platform and then soft power with your vendors. Feels like a "if you run somebody over with your car it's better to back up and kill them" moment of perverse legal incentives.
  • callalex 3y ago
    Really? The lesson I learned is that if you make a product that the US government relies on, you are immune from prosecution. It works across industries from oil to manufacturing to computing.
  • LordKeren 3y ago
    The lesson should be: do not get caught paying off companies to not compete with you when you already have a monopoly because you will get pilloried by a jury. Because that is what Google just got punished for doing. They paid off companies to not ship third party app stores pre installed, pressured software companies to not make third party app stores, and gave money to companies to not compete with Google play
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.
      • LordKeren 3y ago
        No, they could have avoided this outcome by not paying other companies to not compete with Google play. They paid off phone manufacturers like Motorola to not preinstall third party app stores and software companies like Riot Games to not produce third party app stores.
        • lolinder 3y ago
          OP is saying they could also have avoided this outcome by not allowing competition at all. That's the route that Apple took and Apple won their case against Epic. Google's plan was to maintain a de facto monopoly on app stores while technically allowing competition. Apple's was to just come out and say that they were the only authorized app store and therefore they can't be anti-competitive because there exists no market for iOS app stores. Google is probably wishing they had taken that route now.
• summerlight 3y ago
  Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU is giving their hands to do all the jobs necessary for the Apple's case. Those two stores will remain dominant (>95% share) for a foreseeable future, but at least customers will have a choice. Now I wonder what if Google/Apple decided to decrease their cut to a more reasonable level, around 10~15%? App store/Play store fees are not their primary revenue stream so this must be a reasonable cost for them to mitigate this kind of legal risks, but they choose not to do so.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    > Looks like Epic is getting almost everything they wanted from both Google and Apple, given that EU It remains to be seen whether Apple will comply with EU rules outside of the EU. If not, Epic isn't getting their way, because EU revenue alone isn't going to be enough.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • summerlight 3y ago
      Whenever DMA kicks in, I'm reasonably sure that there will be a number of state legislatures to follow this case, which will practically enforce Apple to open up the App store in the US.
      • MBCook 3y ago
        Why do you say that?
        • summerlight 3y ago
          CCPA came after GDPR. What makes you think this is an exception?
    • SllX 3y ago
      I’m not even clear on if under the DMA, Apple has to comply in a way that will enable Epic to make their own store. Depending on how they intend to comply, Epic might still get excluded since they terminated Epic’s developer program accounts and their business relationship in retaliation for the lawsuit Epic filed. If Apple is still anywhere in the final process, its entirely possible other people can make their own storefronts but Epic will not.
• shadowgovt 3y ago
  I still don't know how the jury squares the circle on Play Store being a monopoly when F-Droid is right there... But the thing about juries is they don't have to. Good news for Epic.
  • lvzw 3y ago
    A company need not have 100% market share to have monopoly power in a market.
  • MBCook 3y ago
    Is F-Droid preinstalled on any major android phones? Microsoft was convicted of having a Windows/Internet Explorer monopoly despite the existence of Netscape and the Mac.
• nojvek 3y ago
  I wonder if Lina Khan will be able to finally get her anti-trust case through against Google. It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech, same with Microsoft on the Blizzard acquisition. Almost if the Judges are scared of Big Tech but the Jury composed of lay people see the monopoly for what it is.
  • giblfiz 3y ago
    >It’s interesting how the judges in Apple vs Epic stayed with Big Tech My thought is that the judges are likely staying with the "letter of the law" which is what Big Tech (Big anything really) hires all of their lawyers to make sure that they technically stay within, while flagrantly violating the spirit of the law in a way that helps the business model. The Jury is more prone to look at the spirit of the law.
    • MBCook 3y ago
      I agree. Why would a judge be afraid of Apple or Google? They don’t give a shit. Neither company is going to hire hitmen. The judges are following previous rulings and trying to apply them to what are likely novel situations that the law was never intended to cover because it no one foresaw it. The courts are not how you fix this. The legislature is. Unfortunately that’s too broken to do anything.
      • Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        Don't be too sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • MBCook 3y ago
          A lot of stuff gets proposed that never gets passed. Or if it does it’s been gutted by then. I know this is my cynicism saying it will never happen, but when it comes to this kind of stuff it seems to guess correctly quite a lot.
• thiscatis 3y ago
  Whether they are right or wrong… after another setback how long do we think Sundar Pichai will stay in place.
• port515 3y ago
  [dead]
• hackernewds 3y ago
  I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
  • lolitan 3y ago
    Haha yes...All pretending Apple to be some different entity in a holy universe.
    • el-dude-arino 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • verall 3y ago
    Different people on HN, different judges, judge vs jury
  • shados 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • arp242 3y ago
    I don't know about the court system, but on HN many people do think the same about Apple, although obviously not everyone.
  • tortoise_in 3y ago
    Because apple is not even considered here. They are more closed I guess. Android shopport open source and Linux based also maybe the case.
    • kelnos 3y ago
      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.
  • hipadev23 3y ago
• userbinator 3y ago
  Now go after the rest of Google's effective monopoly on browsers and control over the Internet. I wish the title said Epic Win.
• zer0c00ler 3y ago
  This sounds good, but didn't Apple get off the hook? Anyone can decipher what the difference are?
  • ComputerGuru 3y ago
    Jury trial vs bench hearing.
• glitchc 3y ago
  It is guaranteed to get appealed. This case will drag on for a few more years before we see a resolution.
• johndhi 3y ago
  Couple of thoughts for HN as a lawyer: 1. The fact that Google lost here doesn't bind or affect apple. Jury verdicts aren't binding on any party other than those in the lawsuit. Apple may or may not be found to violate the law in a separate case. 2. Interesting no one has mentioned Epic's Chinese ownership. I could see Google complaining to us govt that it's unfair for Chinese tech to win these court cases against US tech.
  • Andoryuuta 3y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of #2 seems crazy to me. Have there been any past case(s) where the country/nationality of minority owners of a company has been grounds for changing a ruling?
    • MBCook 3y ago
      I’m also not a lawyer, I don’t think they can change a ruling. But they could certainly get a law passed that changes the rules and supersedes the ruling.
      • johndhi 3y ago
        Yes - this. It's not uncommon thah the legislature has passed a law in reaction to a court decision to clarify a law.
        • MBCook 3y ago
          Current example everyone is likely aware of: all the various states trying to pass pro/anti-abortion laws in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
      • fulafel 3y ago
        There are also are intl trade agreements that outlaw favouring domestic companies that the USA enormously benefits from.
• sitkack 3y ago
  OMG this makes me so happy.
• LeicaLatte 3y ago
  Therefore Apple is also a monopoly. Don't let the comments above and below fool you. tldr it is just a different monopoly.
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    No one disputes that Apple and Google are monopolies. Monopolies are not uncommon or illegal. It's what you do with them that counts and this is a story about what Google specifically did with their monopoly and how that was illegal and a jury has said so.
• poulpy123 3y ago
  Tell me if I'm mistaken but Epic lost against Apple that has a completely closed iPhone ecosystem but won against Google that has a relatively open ecosystem ?
  • charles_f 3y ago
    Yes, sounds paradoxical to me as well, but given that a jury was involved, some degree of inconsistency is to be expected
  • imchillyb 3y ago
    That's kind of a childlike interpretation, and mostly fits an anti-apple agenda. The two cases are only similar on the very surface, and nothing alike within the cases themselves. Epic accused apple of being a monopoly, and using its monopoly power to price gouge. The judge in that case ruled that Apple's online store is akin to a physical store and physical stores have _for centuries_ charged monies to shelf products. -- In the Epic vs Google case: > 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. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers and deals with OEMs were all anticompetitive. These two cases are not alike, not similar, and thus have dissimilar outcomes. If Apple is not allowed to continue to charge for shelf space, then neither can walmart, Publix, or any other physical venue. That will never happen in the USA. Stores have centuries long tradition in charging vendors for shelf space to display and sell products. Google was naughty, naughty, naughty, naughty. Google exhibited anti-competitive behavior in 4 different areas.
    • zmmmmm 3y ago
      > If Apple is not allowed to continue to charge for shelf space, then neither can walmart, Publix, or any other physical venue When Walmart charges for shelf space the supplier isn't completely out of business if they don't take the deal. They can go to a different store, settle for non-prime shelf space or sell direct to the public. Those options are just not available to app developers - for many categories of app, Apple is the only way to make a profit at all.
• Andrex 3y ago
  Do I have this straight? Apple: no sideloading Google: yes sideloading Apple: no alternate app stores Google: OS-native APIs for facilitating third-party app stores Apple: no monopoly Google: yes monopoly Just wondering if I have this straight. Edit- > And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling. Oh, OK. Google will take this to SCOTUS, and their record there (The Author's Guild, Oracle) is pretty good. This is far from over.
  • skydhash 3y ago
    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.
    • ehsankia 3y ago
      So by enabling dozens of hardware companies to literally exist and make a ton of money, they are a monopoly? So they're being punished for being open and sharing their OS with others?
      • skydhash 3y ago
        Nope, it's for blocking others to create alternative play stores on non-google devices.
    • remram 3y ago
      > Play Store is optional for manufacturers. Wouldn't that make it less of a monopoly then?
      • skydhash 3y ago
        Not when you're paying for it to be non-optional.
        • remram 3y ago
• optimusPrimal 3y ago
  Not a fan of either, but I fail to see how it is a monopoly. Epic has the money to make their own app store as seen by their PC games one. They could perfectly well just make their own store regardless of Google. This fact alone makes it not a monopoly. Multiply that by how many million other business can put up servers and start an app store (to crash and fail - but besides the point), and by simple logic you prove that Google does not impede competition, and the customer has always the opportunity to use other stores/app platforms such as f-droid, etc. Now, if they locked the ecosystem completely and blocked phones from running apps installed from any other source, that would be a different story. As it is, this is just yet another case of legal ghouls who probably can't setup a wallpaper on their desktop without calling IT deciding tech laws for the rest of us...
  • handoflixue 3y ago
    > This fact alone makes it not a monopoly. "The hypothetical possibility of competition" is definitely not enough to conclude that something is not a monopoly in any legal sense. A monopoly doesn't require 100% control of the market, nor is owning 100% of a market illegal. > by simple logic you prove that Google does not impede competition Again, "the hypothetical possibility of competition" does not mean Google isn't impeding things. In fact, the case established quite the opposite: --- Unlawful Restraint of Trade (Sherman Act Section 1 and California State Law) Question No. 6: Did Epic prove, by a preponderance of the evidence and in accordance with the instructions given to you, that Google entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in a relevant antitrust market? Jury answered: YES Question No. 7: If you answered “yes” to Question 6, which of these agreements did you find to be unreasonable restraint(s) of trade in accordance with the instructions given to you? x DDA agreements x Agreements with Google’s alleged competitors or potential competitors under Project Hug or Games Velocity Program x Agreements with OEMs that sell mobile devices (including MADA and RSA agreements) Jury answered: ALL OF THE ABOVE
• asadotzler 3y ago
  I see too many otherwise smart people suggesting that no one but Google could make a safe or otherwise good app store for Android. That makes me sad. The outcome of this trial should be that ALL Google Play Android APIs are public and documented and that Google be disallowed for a period of say 10 years from developing any new Play Store features on APIs that are not part of that public set. Want to add something to the Play Store, the API is public at or before launch. Even playing field for app stores. Plain and simple. Then it's up to Google to make picking and changing and removing app stores and all of that a super awesome experience that keeps users safe and in control, just like any good OS vendor would. It's also up to Google to have a competitive app store in Google Play. There's plenty of room for competition there and I'll wager that 30% cut will be one of the first things to take a hit.
  • Semaphor 3y ago
    > I see too many otherwise smart people suggesting that no one but Google could make a safe or otherwise good app store for Android. Huh. That is literally the first time I heard a statement like this.
  • gryn 3y ago
    I don't know if you remember the days where each phone had it own OS. It sucked, and beside playing snake there wasn't much you could do with it. you got to take things in context, the current market for mobile OSes is a duopoly shared between apple and Google, there were two cases against each of them, but the outcome for each one them was different. One verdict was that apple get to stay the dictator in its fiefdom and the other, more open platform got punished for trying to do the exact same thing. What every company will take away from this is that, they either got to go full throttle on the control or no throttle at all. Guess which side the companies like when given an ultimatum between theses 2 choices? Is it possible for someone to make a better store than Google ? sure, I don't think any one is arguing that. This will only lead to more fragmentation and a loss for incentive to improve the platform, guess it may join the graveyard in 10 years?
  • remram 3y ago
    I don't understand what "Google Play API" means. The point is the store, not store features or store APIs. The store is a monopoly.
• asadotzler 3y ago
  This could lead to real Play Store competition. I think that's grand. I'm familiar with managing multiple app stores because I'm a Samsung user and there's been an integrated Galaxy Store on every phone I've had going back at least 10 years now. There's nothing wrong with the experience. I've still got the Play Store, which is front and center, presumably because Google is making it worth Samsung's while. I've gone back and forth between having apps installed from one, both, or the other only and right now I'm on Play Store only (but Samsung's Android skin, OneUI and various Samsung apps and services update through that Samsung path.) This is not a big deal. Multiple or alternative stores should be the norm, and celebrated.
• aofeisheng 3y ago
  Will Apple be impacted by this case?
• jamesy0ung 3y ago
  I have an iPad Pro 12.9 (6th Generation). A few weeks ago someone ported KFD (kernel exploit) to the M2 which allowed for the install of TrollStore and by extension, other applications. It irritates me how much you can't do with the device because of the app store. I was running Mario Kart Wii (game) at 1440p with 16x antialiasing fine. The hardware is very capable, but Apple unnecessarily restricts the capabilities of it through software.
• topherPedersen 3y ago
  Google is quite a bit more developer friendly than Apple. Glad to see Epic and developers get a win here, but too bad the courts sided with Apple. Would have liked to see App Store / Play Store duopoly broken up.
  • carstenhag 3y ago
    Google is in this case less developer friendly. They made secret deals with Spotify (0% fees when using Spotify billing, 4% when using Play Store billing), but it took lawsuits for normal devs to only have to pay 15% on the first million. So yeah, it's a middle finger to all devs from Google. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-...
    • Dah00n 3y ago
      >Google is in this case less developer friendly. They made secret deals with Spotify Are you saying Apple is different? I'd like to see the info on those deals if it isn't secret. Like the Spotify deal, Facebook deal, etc.
    • burnerburnson 3y ago
      He said "friendlier than apple." Please read the comment in its entirety before replying next time.
• ajkjk 3y ago
  I am so happy about this.
• kazinator 3y ago
  How does Google compete fiercely with Apple's app store? I have an Android device. If I can't find something in the Google store, can I go to the Apple store? We can stretch the argument to say that a power company in Los Angeles competes fiercely with one in Miami, because if people don't like it in Los Angeles, they might go to Miami (and take some of their appliances with them to a power company there). Thus power companies are not monopolies: people can move. Q.E.D.
• fidotron 3y ago
  The impact of the OEM deals can not be understated, and actually account for Android not being dominant in TV or IoT because Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation. For instance, for a long time if you wanted to make a device with the Play Store on you could not make any Android device which did not have the Play Store, even as a third party for someone else. If you do that while making billions in platform fees don't be surprised when everyone else thinks building their own app stack on top of vanilla embedded Linux is a better idea. Of course often the OEM intentions are far from honest, but the deliberate result of Google's antics is to prevent the emergence of any honest actor trying to produce an Android device which does not serve the ad tech beast.
  • subpixel 3y ago
    I think you mean can’t be overstated?
    • fidotron 3y ago
      Yes you are right, thanks. Too late to edit.
  • jldugger 3y ago
    > Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation. And yet the LG app store is terribad, and constantly pushing garbage the CEOs son in law wrote or something.
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  I don't know how the justice in US works, but I do think precedents matter there. Is it possible for others to sue Google using this case as an legal argument?
• DesiLurker 3y ago
  Empire will strike back.
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  I dislike Android because of Google. I dislike IPhone because it's too expensive and too closed and locked. What choice do I still have if I want to also run some of the most popular apps?
  • staplers 3y ago
    Illusion of choice creates a stronger buy-in from participants, even if they don't have a choice at all.
  • wilg 3y ago
    You can choose either one, or any other phone operating system. Nobody's obligated to make a popular phone operating system that satisfies all your desires.
    • DeathArrow 3y ago
      I didn't say anyone is obligated to make an open popular phone OS. I just asked what is my option if I dislike lockins and tracking.
      • dannyw 3y ago
        Pinephone.
  • 8K832d7tNmiQ 3y ago
    Pixel + grapheneOS is the best middleground if you want.
  • ggm 3y ago
    Go off-piste and depend on unknown third parties running builds based on AOSP. But, some things "blobs" mainly, are probably unavoidable.
  • amai 3y ago
    See https://www-handyhase-de.translate.goog/magazin/android-alternative/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-handyhase-de.translate.goog/magazin/android-alte..., for example https://e.foundation/ https://e.foundation/. See also https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairphone-5/ https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairpho...
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  I think the PC model is the best. You can install whatever you want from wherever you want. You have countless hardware and manufacturers to choose from. You can repair it. I think smartphones should be more like PCs.
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  Can customers sue Google and Apple for not having enough choice? Or it's only the competition that has some chances?
• nodamage 3y ago
  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 deciding to purchase an iPhone anyway means they "knowingly agreed to the challenged restraint". Under US law the precedent is very clear (established by the Supreme Court case Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services and the 9th Circuit case Newcal v. Ikon) that if the consumer knowingly agrees to aftermarket restraints ahead of time then that aftermarket will essentially not be considered a monopoly for antitrust purposes. Source: The Epic v. Apple 9th Circuit ruling (specifically pages 30 to 40 which explains this in detail).
  • gardenhedge 3y ago
    "Knowingly agrees" - that phrase is doing a lot. The average consumer who buys an iPhone has no idea about Apple approved apps or app store restrictions. There also not told about it when purchasing the device or setting it up.
    • willseth 3y ago
      Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buying any device with services attached to sit in a little room and interrogate them until you're sure they understand every detail?
      • gardenhedge 3y ago
        In my country chemists are required to give you some information before selling you certain drugs. Something similar could be done.
        • willseth 3y ago
• vkaku 3y ago
  In all fairness, the folks saying that the App store model isn't illegal, per last year's split judgment may want to consider Epic could re-open the case. - Citing the current payment options open to most subscription services - How practically do these other options end up saving the 30% fees structure for end consumers and businesses - Explicit demonstrations of non-App Store purchases and restoration of ownership in games - How Apple enforces App Store review processes for apps with other payment options If these are proven and turn out to be hurting competition and customers, that lawsuit might see an overturn. We'll have to see where it goes.
• kaptainscarlet 3y ago
  Next lawsuit should deal with their monopoly on push notifications with Firebase
• dickersnoodle 3y ago
  [flagged]
• boringg 3y ago
  Serious question - does anyone really think of Sweeney as the underdog here and that he's fighting for the "little guy" gamer? Honestly asking to me it seems like a position to take to generate some political power but at the end of the day he's representing large corporate interests as well.
  • ARandumGuy 3y ago
    Both Google and Epic are large for-profit companies, and are primarily concerned with maximizing investor returns. Neither company should be considered "the good guy." Despite that, I'm still glad that Epic won this case, as I believe they're in the right. But just because I think they're in the right with this court case does not mean I think that they're "the good guy," nor that they're concerned with gamers. Epic clearly has their own agenda, and in this specific case it aligns with my own.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • DuctTapeAI 3y ago
    From what I understand it's all ego and ethics from him - the board is not stoked about the risk involved and the potential upside. I think Epic has something to gain by removing app store fees for medium sized games though - that would put money back in their pocket creating an opportunity to charge more for Unreal revshare.
  • zamadatix 3y ago
    Underdog yes, it's a multi billion dollar company going after multi trillion dollar companies. Fighting for the little guy nah, fighting for their own interests. Those interests are probably closer to aligning with what the typical small/individual player might want than what the larger players want but that's not why they are doing it.
  • nfriedly 3y ago
    Yeah, to my view, it's one giant corporation battling another giant corporation, with little regard for end users like me. I suppose Epic is the smaller of the two, so relative to Google, maybe they are the underdog. But compared to me they're both "big dogs". In general, I am in favor of breaking up monopolies and making smart phones and other devices more open so, on the surface, this seems like a good result.
• asylteltine 3y ago
  Good now break up Google and Amazon
• synergy20 3y ago
  Please, let's do the same to Apple. At least, Apple please support PWA.
• guru4consulting 3y ago
  I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But there's no such an option in mobile app store world. My banks, wearable devices, even many government services provide their apps via Apple/Android app stores and I'm forced to use only these app stores.. ignoring mobile and just using browsers is not practical. At this point, the app stores are monopolies and consumers are the ones who are impacted. Let Apple/Google give a top notch app store and claim it to be more secure, reliable, trust worthy (they are not today).. but let them also give other options to consumers if they want to take the risk and download apps from another app store if they want to. And these are already trillion dollar companies. Why do some people support them to grow even more bigger and more powerful? It's a nightmare to see power getting accumulated into few hands. It's high time they are regulated. Don't treat them with kid gloves. They are not your typical mom & pop stores.
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    TBF Google does have alternative app stores. That's why people who didn't read the article or lawsuit are confused that this lawsuit succeeded but Apple failed. Of course all this fails to take into account why Google actually loss. it was using that monopolistic pressure to push away OEM deals. That's defintiely where the monopoly was being used anti-competitively. But yea, really would like both mobile OS's to open up more. Apple is especially bad because they can effectively ban stuff of an entire OS if it doesn't follow store policies. no 18+ apps, no emulators, no file explorers (tho these two were loosened overtime), no alternate browsers unless it's a safari skin. Can't imagine Microsoft getting away with this on Windows at any time.
  • EchoReflection 3y ago
    worse, Apple and Google worked together (without the public knowing, of course) "as if they were one company". https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/apple-google-worked-as-one-company-on-search-deal-u-s-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/apple-goo... https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/11/35888191/apple-google-wanted-a-deep-deep-partnership-and-to-work-as-if-we-are-one-company https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/11/35888191/apple-google-wa... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-search-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s... https://www.businessinsider.com/google-apple-deal-default-search-engine-chatgpt-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-apple-deal-default-se... the sources go on and on, which makes sense, I guess. when two of the world's biggest and most powerful companies have interests that overlap (exclude any OS that isn't Android or iOS) collusion seems like a natural choice.
• darklycan51 3y ago
  Phones are a literal hellhole to utilize compared to desktop, which is why I very literally do not buy any smartphone other than the low end 2017 one I still own. Even "sideloading" is fairly trash on itself, just let me pick any appstore whatsoever and install out of the box, no need to "sideload".
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Here is the verdict form: https://ia804506.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.364325/gov.uscourts.cand.364325.606.0.pdf https://ia804506.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
• abvdasker 3y ago
  Even by the absurdly high US antitrust standards of consumer harm Apple and Google's app stores qualify as anti-competitive. Major corporations like Netflix have made it impossible to sign up for the service in-app because the lost signups cost less than the app store fees. The pound of flesh Google and Apple extract is probably downright prohibitive for many smaller businesses who can't afford to take the hit on signups. Who knows how many promising startups have been smothered in the cradle because of these anti-competitive practices? This is a case of simple economic inefficiency created by monopolies and it needs to end.
• UlisesAC4 3y ago
  It's incredible that in retrospective. Apple avoided this problem by being absolute The Monopoly of IOs development.
• LoveMortuus 3y ago
  My hypothesis: Google wants to lose, so that they can use that to force the government to allow them to put a Google Play Store on an iPhone.
• leeeeeepw 3y ago
  [dead]
• leeeeeepw 3y ago
  Don't get me started on Adsense and internet ads. Ok you got me started, my developer tools site helps people develop Chrome extensions webfiddle.net I had my entire adsense account including all of my other games cancelled because it's against Google's terms of service to advertise on other people's content... well that's exactly Google's business model. Think about it? Banned me for life too, if they want to crush people on the internet it's in their DNA and don't think they won't. Meanwhile the people allowed to run internet ads are selling v iol e nce, pi lls, se gs, addictive gam bli ng games etc on my kids YouTube videos.