4 ms·
This only matters if they're the only platform available. But, they're not. You can use Android, its forks, or otherwise. While one can be philosophically oppos
by kup0 8y ago
This only matters if they're the only platform available. But, they're not. You can use Android, its forks, or otherwise. While one can be philosophically opposed to their walled-garden, there is zero legal ground to stand on to regulate Apple in this regard when they are not a monopoly as defined by law.
They have the right to control what is available in their own app store, whether we like it or not.
Calling their control "monopoly" and "censorship" really dilutes the actual meaning of both terms
- fulafel 8y agoSounds like you are talking cross purposes. S/He argues for changing the law and you are explaining the current law.
- kup0 8y agoThat wasn't very clear from the original posts, as they discussed anti-competitive behavior and regulators, not new legislation to be written. To me this implied a desire for them to be regulated under current law, which may have been my mistake in reading it. It makes more sense read with new legislation being the intent, so you have a point. That said, that type of regulation seems overly heavy-handed IMHO, and I'm typically not an anti-regulation type of person.