8 ms·

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 an

by 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.
    - slimsag 3y ago
      If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?
      - StressedDev 3y ago
        They are never going to do this.
        slimsag 3y ago
        Doesn't matter, I ask because the industry will (and is actively) trending towards this. It won't be Microsoft, it'll be whoever replaces Microsoft in the long term. My question remains: what will happen in that case and what do we want to happen?
madeofpalk 3y ago
Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exec boasted she got Riot to halt development on its own app store by promising the company $10M in marketing. > Another Google exec suggested that sharing revenue with Samsung would be “better at disincentivizing other app stores from being preloaded.” > Google wanted to offer a 16 percent Google Play revenue share to key Chinese OEMs to “secure Play exclusivity” — and wound up giving them 20 percent. > A secret Google deal let Spotify completely bypass Android’s app store fees Apple made significantly less of these deals - they have their rules that you can either follow or not participate. I do think that some of those rules limit competition and make worse products for consumers.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.
  - jonbell 3y ago
    There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.
    - hackernewds 3y ago
ravetcofx 3y ago
And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Apple has global dominance on market profits
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.
LordKeren 3y ago
I think it is pretty easy to review google’s deals with phone manufacturers to stop them from shipping third party app stores presintalled and quickly come to the conclusion that Google was using its market position to prevent competition between the Google play store and others on android. Google, as evidenced by their own internal documents put into record in this trial, was not interested in creating a platform where they had any real completion with the Google play store
jongjong 3y ago
The message I got is that everything is corrupt. I hope Google execs and shareholders also got that message. Now finally some big guys are getting a sense of the issue with centralization. There can only be one government-ordained winner and it's not the one who plays fair and square who wins. It's usually the biggest political manipulator. Google is in a weak position now due to the perceived risk of AI disrupting its business. When you show any weakness at all, the law starts working against you in the most blatant ways and it becomes self-fulfilling.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that Google lost this lawsuit because the government decided they don’t matter anymore because they don’t have good enough AI on the market?
  - jongjong 3y ago
    No. I'm suggesting that Apple won theirs because they are more important in the eyes of the corrupt government and that's what it takes to win. There can only be one winner. Second place is a loser. Just wait 10 or 20 years. Watch the system concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands and people blame everything under the sun except the design of the system. I think the winner will probably be either Microsoft or Oracle because they are the most corrupt. Seriously, does Microsoft or Oracle do anything useful these days? No, they just extort money from the government via overpriced proprietary software licenses, lock-ins and contracts obtained through corrupt practices. That's what winners do.
    - tavavex 3y ago
      How exactly does this work, in your opinion? Does "The Government" (one entity) somehow decide on something like this and forces a specific judge to rule in a certain way? If something like this was uncovered, it'd be way bigger than this lawsuit. And while you have a bit of a point about Oracle being stagnant... Microsoft? They own and develop tons of things. Microsoft isn't just Windows and Office.

by Spivak 3y ago

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.
  - slimsag 3y ago
    If Microsoft discontinues Windows and stops partnering with all personal PC manufacturers to produce computers/laptops... while simultaneously pushing the xbox as 'more than a gaming console', introducing 'portable xbox' like laptops, etc. but keeps them otherwise extremely restricted... what happens? no antitrust?
    - StressedDev 3y ago
      They are never going to do this.
      - slimsag 3y ago
        Doesn't matter, I ask because the industry will (and is actively) trending towards this. It won't be Microsoft, it'll be whoever replaces Microsoft in the long term. My question remains: what will happen in that case and what do we want to happen?

madeofpalk 3y ago

Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exec boasted she got Riot to halt development on its own app store by promising the company $10M in marketing. > Another Google exec suggested that sharing revenue with Samsung would be “better at disincentivizing other app stores from being preloaded.” > Google wanted to offer a 16 percent Google Play revenue share to key Chinese OEMs to “secure Play exclusivity” — and wound up giving them 20 percent. > A secret Google deal let Spotify completely bypass Android’s app store fees Apple made significantly less of these deals - they have their rules that you can either follow or not participate. I do think that some of those rules limit competition and make worse products for consumers.

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
- dagmx 3y ago
  We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.
- jonbell 3y ago
  There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.
  - hackernewds 3y ago

ravetcofx 3y ago

And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Apple has global dominance on market profits
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.

LordKeren 3y ago

I think it is pretty easy to review google’s deals with phone manufacturers to stop them from shipping third party app stores presintalled and quickly come to the conclusion that Google was using its market position to prevent competition between the Google play store and others on android. Google, as evidenced by their own internal documents put into record in this trial, was not interested in creating a platform where they had any real completion with the Google play store

jongjong 3y ago

The message I got is that everything is corrupt. I hope Google execs and shareholders also got that message. Now finally some big guys are getting a sense of the issue with centralization. There can only be one government-ordained winner and it's not the one who plays fair and square who wins. It's usually the biggest political manipulator. Google is in a weak position now due to the perceived risk of AI disrupting its business. When you show any weakness at all, the law starts working against you in the most blatant ways and it becomes self-fulfilling.

MBCook 3y ago
Are you suggesting that Google lost this lawsuit because the government decided they don’t matter anymore because they don’t have good enough AI on the market?
- jongjong 3y ago
  No. I'm suggesting that Apple won theirs because they are more important in the eyes of the corrupt government and that's what it takes to win. There can only be one winner. Second place is a loser. Just wait 10 or 20 years. Watch the system concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands and people blame everything under the sun except the design of the system. I think the winner will probably be either Microsoft or Oracle because they are the most corrupt. Seriously, does Microsoft or Oracle do anything useful these days? No, they just extort money from the government via overpriced proprietary software licenses, lock-ins and contracts obtained through corrupt practices. That's what winners do.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    How exactly does this work, in your opinion? Does "The Government" (one entity) somehow decide on something like this and forces a specific judge to rule in a certain way? If something like this was uncovered, it'd be way bigger than this lawsuit. And while you have a bit of a point about Oracle being stagnant... Microsoft? They own and develop tons of things. Microsoft isn't just Windows and Office.