131–140 of 607 posts
So, then, Apple is next?
No, apple won on the exact same claims in front of a different judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
Wait, so the Google Play Store, which you can install alternatives to (F-Droid, Aurora, Amazon,...), and where you can easily install apps through other means (such as downloading an APK through your browser and running it from the file manager) is an illegal monopoly while the Apple App Store isn't? Well, I guess Google's market cap is only 2 trillion compared to Apple's 3 trillion, so I guess that's fair.
Google, in contrast, started with a FOSS operating system and then added proprietary components provided under licensing terms deliberately intended to claw back your right to use the FOSS parts. For example, if you want to ship Google Play on a device, you can't also manufacture tablets for Amazon, because Fire OS is an "incompatible" Android fork. Google provided AOSP as Free Software and then secretly overrode that Freedom with the licensing terms for GMS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
If you want Android, you know where you can find it.
If other iPhone users want to install their own apps without jumping through absurd hoops, let them instead of telling them what they can and can't do with the hardware they own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably not a great idea to point at a monopoly, as a defense of one's own monopoly, and claim "Yeah, but he did it worse." Both Google and Apple's platforms need to be cracked open to competition.
I can see why they'd want to say "our competitor does it worse but we're the only ones being regulated". Sure, they'd rather not be regulated at all... but, if they are, then they want to be regulated no worse than their competitor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. Epic is offering a different pricing model that might or might not be more advantageous to developers That is literally what competition should look like.
From the judges decisions: > Google also can’t: > Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon Prime Video... Netflix... Disney Plus... The choices are great... Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Yes, they are. This competition means an enormous boom in quality content has been produced that would have never existed otherwise because of the competition. Choices are great and have resulted in far better services.
The problem is tying the content to the platform. All studios should be required to license their content under RAND terms to all other streaming platforms. Then the streaming platforms can actually compete on objective measures like price, reliability, video quality, offline watching, etc.
In this case I don't think we've gotten better services. I still believe that the gold standard for a streaming app has been Netflix (well, at least until a few years ago; it's started going downhill IMO). All the others have significant problems, whether with reliability or quality, or with UX. They've certainly gotten better over time, but I don't think I'd consider any of them pleasant to use.
For the longest time, legally, movie studios could not own movie theaters. We correctly recognized that the studios should not have a monopoly on where and how their content is distributed. Unfortunately I believe that law has expired or been repealed recently. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more laws like that, and we need them to apply to streaming platforms too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here. In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot). Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything…
Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.
Soon we'll have the Verizon Appstore and the Spotify Appstore and the Zoom Appstore, the exclusive home for each app and their partners, each with it's own overlapping user tracking libraries and insecure payment methods, and no one can even tell them to do otherwise. Coming soon to iOS, too!
Yep. Then consumers can decide which one is best for them. Then they can compete. Then the best features with the best pricing, no only for customers, but the cut for developers, can be discovered. You pay such a high price for living in the walled garden. I honestly can't imagine why you would _want_ it.
I got an iPhone so that I wouldn't have to deal with the Android ecosystem. I go to the app store, install an app, and get on with my life.