4 ms·
In theory yes, but I can't imagine what the claim would be; "They won't let me make a business out of selling apps on their platform" ? It feels like monopoly
by peterwwillis 7y ago
In theory yes, but I can't imagine what the claim would be; "They won't let me make a business out of selling apps on their platform" ?
It feels like monopoly would be easier to prove: "There is no other competitor to provide an app on these devices and people depend on them for critical tasks". In a way, this mimics the breakup of Ma Bell. AT&T controlled all the phone service, and they also created all the hardware that ran all the phone service. Rather than divest their ownership of the hardware, AT&T proposed to break itself up, so "local operating companies" would own the last mile, supposedly creating competition.
Google could do the same thing by allowing device manufacturers (or whomever) to install their own Play Store, and users of devices could choose what Play Store to use.
- doodliego 7y agoGet 100 developers and small companies with similar stories and it should be easy to convince a jury that Google arbitrarily, without cause or review, destroyed these people's livelihoods and should be held liable and accountable. EULA is not some magic shield against the actual court system, either.
- Fnoord 7y ago> In theory yes, but I can't imagine what the claim would be; "They won't let me make a business out of selling apps on their platform" ? The narrative is that they killed the business without a fair due process. Then they wouldn't listen to the "customer"'s complaint or questions for clarification. It is bad "customer" service.
- gwbas1c 7y agoThe plaintiffs just have to prove harm. Based on the article, this looks very easy to do.