• @evo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    741 year ago

    The only thing we’ve learned today is that Apple’s lawyers are far better than Google’s…

    • @Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      561 year ago

      Yeah… How the fuck is Google action here “monopolistic” and Apple literally refusing to let anyone in at all somehow isn’t? What a joke.

      • deweydecibel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        Because iOS is Apple’s OS on Apple’s hardware. The court ruled they could do what they want. Android is not Google’s OS, even if it’s mostly theirs, and they certainly have no control over the hardware apart from Pixels.

        Competition is possible on Android in a way it isn’t on iOS. Google was being anti-competitive in a space where others can compete, Apple was just being a bully in their own backyard.

      • deweydecibel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s so frustrating seeing this question constantly in all these threads when this has been explained.

        iOS is locked down. It is not an open, competitive market. That in itself is not against the law, and it won’t be considered an anti-trust issue until the market share grows.

        Android is not locked down, which means it’s a competitive marketplace.

        Google was not doing the same thing as Apple. Google was using shady deals to make Android less competitive. iOS was never competitive to begin with.

        Apple got off on a technicality, basically.

        What Apple does is shitty and deserves regulating, but apparently we have a ways to go before we reach the EU’s level of understanding on this.

        • @woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          It’s so frustrating seeing this question constantly in all these threads when this has been explained.

          I’ve read your comment as well as a bunch of articles and I still don’t understand it. From the article: “[Epic] wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android”. My Samsung phones comes with two completely different app stores out of the box, the Google Play one and the Samsung Galaxy one. The latter offers the Epic Games Store. I really cannot wrap my head around why in this specific case Google is being anti competitive.

          To get access to the Play Store, OEMs have to bundle a bunch of additional apps and services. That I get for being anti competitive but that’s not what Epic’s case was about. They didn’t sue about their web search being disadvantaged by the Google Search bar mandate. They didn’t sue because they made a web browser nobody is using because of the Chrome mandate. They sued and apparently argued successfully that they cannot get their store onto Android phones and yet, as stated, my phone already comes with two app stores and EGS is listed in the second one.

        • @Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          It’s so frustrating seeing so many people repost this shit thinking that repeating the same garbage is helpful.

          No one gives a fuck about the “legal” definition of why this is “allowed”. Looking at this with basic common sense, what Apple is getting away with is much worse than what Google is getting pegged for.

          People complaining don’t care that there’s a stupid loophole in the legal definitions as to why Apple is allowed to do this. If the laws and definitions make that OK, and Google’s actions are held to be more “anti competitive” then the laws and definitions need to change.

          That’s what people are complaining about. Not that “oh what’s the legal loophole that allows this”. No one cares about the legal shit that allows this. That’s why they keep complaining “even after this has been answered”.

    • 520
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Thing is, Apple is only 30% of the market. Google is the other 70%

  • @kippinitreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    I think a lot of people here are missing the point that in a court legal != pro-consumer. The US has monopoly laws that Apple (annoyingly) follows but Google does not.

    • @LibreFish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      They force anybody using the android trademark to include Google Play/Services, not a lawyer but I think that’s “tying” when they force you to use one thing with something else.

      And juries are unpredictable.

        • @CustodialTeapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          I class myself as a power user, other than Galaxy Store (which is also seem mostly as bloatware) is not offered on any non-samsung phone set up.

          The Amazon App Store is acceptable but also gated

          • Carighan Maconar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            81 year ago

            Of course, but Epic also doesn’t want that. They just wSnt that 30% cut gone, that’s exactly the only part they care about. In fact, epic of all companies loves locking people out of access. Sweeney is just pissed and throwing a tantrum and disguising it as a good thing. If he could have had this say “epic gets special treatment everyone gets fucked” he absolutely would have!