531–540 of 1001 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Madeofpalk’s comment explains the (possible) issue very well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608075 Apple has always been “here’s the rules, follow or go away”. Google was “we’re open!” except they kept undermining that.
It doesn't matter for US legal system how their marketing call that. It's either legal or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable
So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes - this. It's not uncommon thah the legislature has passed a law in reaction to a court decision to clarify a law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't be too sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't be too sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google only has the monopoly in Android app distribution. Apple has it in iOS app distribution.
That’s like saying Porsche has a monopoly on all red mid-engine German sports coupes. Apps run on pocket computing devices with phone and data connectivity. Two operating systems compete in that space.
Your derision is misdirected. It's literally what the court case was about.