> This battle is about the _ability_ to implement a feature, and that power should reside with the application developer. Which begs the question: who, is _the

> This battle is about the _ability_ to implement a feature, and that power should reside with the application developer. Which begs the question: who, is _the_ developer? I think the argument can be convincingly made that both Roku and Google are “the” developer. It seems to be the fundamental disagreement underlying every modern accusation of antitrust. Trying to think of analogies for this “dual developer” framework from the analog world and it’s difficult to come up with one that isn’t in a heavily regulated industry. Airplane & engine manufacturers maybe? Certainly no one would say Rolls Royce is the “manufacturer” of a plane but I would expect they still exercise some degree of control over what plane manufacturers can change and do to the engine. If planes with Rolls Royce engines started falling out of the sky it would be bad for business regardless of whether it was Boeing or Airbus’s doing. But the same can also be said for Boeing and Airbus. Probably more so. Regardless, I worry the most recent claims of antitrust violation aren’t about consumer protection (as antitrust was intended) so much as they’re about consumer control.