131–140 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Google is punished because they made their platform more open. Well, that certainly will bode well for the future.
No, they’re getting punished because they faced a jury instead of a judge.
https://www.wired.com/story/jury-will-decide-if-googles-play...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Walled garden is fine. Charging exorbitant fees because you've strong armed any and all competition out of the game isn't. A reasonable fee with 0 competition would be fine. No fee, while hiking the prices of the devices would be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And we have already seen what happens when third party companies go around the Google Play store. You might have heard about this little company https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-gam...
So, yes, when users literally own their own devices, it is difficult for the manufacturer to keep them perfectly secure without abusing monopoly power.
The door also swings the other way here too, because malware has certainly existed _inside_ the Play Store, and it took _users_ to bring it to the billion dollar corporations attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system is still working, just slowly. Conflicting rulings from lower courts in very similar cases will be appealed and get put before the Supreme Court, whose ruling will apply to everyone
It's always leg day in Chief Justice Alito's kangaroo court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be terrible for consoles. They would not be able to recover their costs early enough in the lifecycle. Which means that the time between console releases would be much longer than it already is. It also would put Nintendo in an untenable situation since they rely on low price hardware as their differentiation.
The would be the end of consoles. At this point consoles have very few advantages to PC. If they got "opened up" it would be zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downloading an APK from a website is just as easy as installing an exe on windows from some site, and millions of barely tech-literate people do that every day
Yes and they get viruses, malware, and ransomware from doing so. My mom searched for a printer driver and ended up installing some third party crap wars on her computer
I've said it before, I'll say it again, as many times as people need to hear it: There is no such thing as, "I'm just not a computer person!" We're over and done with that era of human history. Just like we're over and done with, "I just can't read and write!" Too bad. You live in a world were reading and writing is required just to exist. It's been that way for about 100 years, give or take depending on who you ask.
Now you need to have basic understanding of computers and the Internet. That's the world we're living in now.
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. Th…
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.
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-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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not s…
I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.