7 ms·
Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court
- jxdxbx 3y agoIt’s not a question of evidence, but the law. There is no “duty to deal” with other firms. But if you choose to do so, you have to do so fairly.
- scarface_74 3y agoThis is not true. There is no such thing as having to deal “fairly”. You are completely free to make different deals with different customers reason #1367 that HN commenters make horrible lawyers
- wizardwes 3y agoExcept fairly doesn't mean the same deals with different customers? It's perfectly fair to charge lower fees to someone already proven, while charging higher for someone who is just starting out. It's perfectly fair to have the same asking price for something, but sell it for less to someone who actually negotiated for it.
- rezonant 3y agoIt's almost like this stuff has nothing to do with fairness, and actually has to do with leveraging your market position to behave anti competitively.
- omeid2 3y agoNo, you're not completely free to make different deals with different customers, the imperative word here being "completely". For example, RRPs are generally considered illegal, you can't force your customers to sale at specified minimum price, and more crucially, you can't do it selectively.
- scarface_74 3y agoSo define your legal definition of “treating customers fairly”
- omeid2 3y agoWell, the exact definition depends on the jurisdictions, but just about any market has fair trading regulations that at least outline what is considered unfair treatment.
- scarface_74 3y agoWell this case is in the US. What are the “fair trading” laws that force companies to treat all customers equally
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- COGlory 3y agoAllow me to direct you to the Wikipedia entry on "collusion" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
- threatofrain 3y agoThat's not collusion. Collusion is a pattern of behaving between multiple competitors which has an end effect of coordinating on price. The policy focus on regulating collusion should be on patterns of behavior which reduces competitiveness in markets. IMO there's a stronger policy argument for saying that Apple shouldn't be copy-pasting prices from other places like Playstation. That's much closer to collusion.
- COGlory 3y agoGoogle paid potential competitors cash to not compete.
- threatofrain 3y agoAnd this entire post is basically a question of "But what about Apple?" When Google licenses out Android they've essentially created an Android marketplace. Apple avoided this problem by not being open.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dang 3y agoUrl changed from https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-apple-google-lawsuit/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-apple-google-laws..., which points to this. Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- CharlesW 3y agoThanks dang! I normally do this, but just thought the quote from Tim to The Verge was interesting too.
- dang 3y agoHmm, I missed that there were two original sources, not one. Should we change the above link to https://www.theverge.com/23996474/epic-tim-sweeney-interview-win-google-antitrust-lawsuit-district-court https://www.theverge.com/23996474/epic-tim-sweeney-interview... instead? Edit: since https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38623158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38623158 was posted, maybe we can try that one and see if the thread turns out any better.
- tedunangst 3y agoWhat didn't Apple write down?
- magic_man 3y agoApple basically didn't write anything down. Tim Sweeney: The thing with Apple is all of their antitrust trickery is internal to the company. They use their store, their payments, they force developers to all have the same terms, they force OEMs and carriers to all have the same terms. I think the Apple case would be no less interesting if we could see all of their internal thoughts and deliberations, but Apple was not putting it in writing, whereas Google was. You know, I think Apple is… it’s a little bit unfortunate that in a lot of ways Apple’s restrictions on competition are absolute. Thou shalt not have a competing store on iOS and thou shalt not use a competing payment method. And I think Apple should be receiving at least as harsh antitrust scrutiny as Google.
- shadowgovt 3y agoGoogle and Microsoft generally are the backstop against an Apple monopoly. Don't like Apple making so many decisions for you as a user? Windows and Android are right there.
- silenced_trope 3y agoIt's hard though - I've been an Android dev for 8 years but have always had an iPhone. I've never considered switching to Android. And despite the fact that I want a wide variety of options, I prefer MacBooks, I prefer many Apple services, including software.
- freeAgent 3y agoGoogle and Microsoft have gone too far in the direction of shoving ads into all my interactions with their products that I now have no interest in using, much less paying for, most of them. The only Google services I still use are Nest and YouTube (both of which I pay for). I use MS for some of my email, but I’m migrating away. Unless Google and Microsoft see the light and accommodate users who hate ads, it’s going to be mostly Apple and Linux for me.
- eek2121 3y ago[flagged]
- 3y ago
- Civitello 3y agoOne was a jury trial and one was a bench trial. I think that probably has a lot to do with it.
- fh9302 3y agoGoogle chose a jury trial.
- InTheArena 3y agoI think it's a fair bet to say that either Apple's lawyers are better.. or Apple's employees are better (acting within the law) or both.
- scarface_74 3y agoOr maybe Sweeney is an unreliable narrator?
- echelon 3y ago> And I think Apple should be receiving at least as harsh antitrust scrutiny as Google. They both deserve antitrust attention, but Apple is the far worse offender. The cellphone is more essential than the car, and here are these two companies basically owning and taxing the roads, fuel, destinations, activities, and in-car entertainment. And you can't upgrade or change anything.
- xattt 3y agoIt sounds like you're advocating to nationalize app stores, much like other public utilities should have or should continue to stay in public hands.
- scarface_74 3y agoYes because what could possibly go wrong with the government controlling content
- smoldesu 3y agoNothing worse than the status-quo, presumably: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-startup-local-apps-yandex-mail-ru-law https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-sta... Given that US/FIVE-EYES surveillance is a prerequisite for all American smartphones, I'd at least appreciate them using their state power to benefit the customer for once. The US' negligence in prosecuting any of the transparently corrupt FAANG companies makes it obvious how they don't want to butcher any of their own cash cows. Trusting corporations to dissent this late in the game is a futile and sad way to watch your hope for humanity deteriorate.
- scarface_74 3y agoSo you really think the state controlling content is not going to be more restrictive than private corporations? And why are you quoting an article about Russia?
- Pxtl 3y agoLesson learned: just lock down your platform like Apple. Corrupted freedom is apparently worse than totalitarian control.
- COGlory 3y agoIf Android was locked down, it would be tiny and irrelevant.
- smoldesu 3y agoThe Nintendo Switch runs a locked-down version of Android that has sold over 100 million units of associated hardware.
- StressedDev 3y agoI do not think the Switch runs Android. I think it runs BSD. Could you please provide a link showing the Switch runs Android?
- smoldesu 3y agoIt looks like I was wrong. Same family of hardware/drivers, different OS. Same principle and concept, though; I think BSD's success in the console industry proves that open OSes can find use (albeit as components of closed systems).
- donkeybeer 3y agoI'd say the main reason is that BSD licensed oses are attractive to these locked down devices because there is no requirement to keep your fork open source as well. Play Station 3, and if this is true then apparently Nintendo Switch as well, and so on.
- lolinder 3y agoWikipedia says you're both wrong—it uses some code from both FreeBSD and Android, but isn't actually based on either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_software#Open_source_components https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softw...
- shadowgovt 3y agoLegal verdicts can be extremely path-dependent. I wonder how a judge would have evaluated Google's explanation of why legal-held docs were deleted.
- InTheArena 3y agoOr, if you don't assume that Epic's case is automatically righteous, it may simply be that Apple acted legally while Google acted illegally. Certainly, there is evidence that Google used their market power to crush alternatives.
- GeekyBear 3y agoThe thing that landed Google in hot water was that they licensed Android to multiple vendors and then used anticompetitive shenanigans to control the marketplace. Look at XBox and Windows at Microsoft. XBox is a walled garden and you can't create a game for it without Microsoft's permission and giving Microsoft a cut. There have been zero legal repercussions for this. Windows is licensed to multiple vendors and Microsoft has faced antitrust actions many times in many jurisdictions for their anticompetitive actions related to Windows over the years.
- StressedDev 3y agoXbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo sometimes lose money on hardware sales. Operating system venders never lose money on software sales because software costs nothing to reproduce (they can still lose money but the loses do not increase as sales increase). I do not know anti-trust law but I think the difference in business models should be acknowledged.
- dagmx 3y agoSoftware costs money to develop, and is largely given away for free as a loss leader in today’s market. I know you’re probably trying to focus specifically on cost to provide the software and not the cost before that (which I’d argue is flawed) but you’re also then missing out on the support cost etc… from there on out.
- nolok 3y ago> Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo sometimes lose money on hardware sales. Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss, Sony hasn't done it since the PS3 in 2006 and Microsoft since the 360. So it's not the norm since more than a decade.
- morelisp 3y agoMaybe you're playing a semantic game with "console", but both the 3DS and Wii U were initially sold at a loss. I think the Wii U may have always been sold at a loss. (Edit: Apparently only the the first three years, though I guess it's questionable the degree to which it sold at all after that.)
- midtake 3y agoI have no problem believing that Googlers would have closed controversial deals over chat then deleted evidence thereof. Google seems to be full of internet thugs who consider themselves to exist on a greater plane. Ever since they used street view cars to harvest WiFi MAC addresses I have had this sense about them. The "fuck you, compile it yourself if you want checksums" approach to Chromium only further cements the idea that this is a company culture thing. I understand that it must feel exhilarating and powerful to work at El Goog, and I do envy them quite a bit and don't blame them much for their megalomania, but they should remember that envisioning themselves as God's chosen might be an incompatible mindset if the goal is to be sly.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]