511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More of HN uses iOS than Android.
Oh, does the site report this kind of info? That’s interesting, where? It would also be neat to know mobile vs desktop, and how’s the Linux population doing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is t…
The mental gymnastics outplay here are wild. Google is anticompetitive because they allowed users to install third party apps, but paid big players not to develop app stores. But if they had just done what Apple does, and just ban third party installs all together, that'd be what? Hyper competitive and fair? It absolutely pains me to see Google essentially punished for having the only phone platform that allows users…
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 ?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not when you're paying for it to be non-optional.
Somebody else could pay them to put their store on? I don't understand. The fact that you get to make a deal for money seems strictly more free-market than the alternative.
You really do not want people paying to block competition from arising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you can do that today by buying an Android device
Why do you defend apples 30% tax on ios apps, and being the sole approver of what apps you can install on your device?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.
And in Apple's case an extremely restrictive package manger. Want to send encrypted notifications? Got to request the entitlements.