3 ms·
TLDR: Google was exploiting “openness” as a concept while actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss as op asserts. It’s neat that you ma
by wredue 3y ago
TLDR: Google was exploiting “openness” as a concept while actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss as op asserts.
It’s neat that you make this a Google vs apple thing somehow, but the walled garden had very little to do with the lawsuit.
Google was found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. This behaviour is used by at least some consumers to make decisions (being an “open platform”), but which Google was forcibly manipulating behind to scenes to not actually be as open as they were pretending to be.
You can call it just “apple keeping a walled garden” all you like, it doesn’t change that Google was attempting to shift market behaviours based on what was demonstrably a lie. For all intents and purposes, Google *was a walled garden*, and comments like yours show that their manipulation worked.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe walled garden has everything to do with the lawsuit. This lawsuit would not have happened had Android been a walled garden.
- wredue 3y agoAndroid *is a walled garden*, and that’s why they lost. Google asserts that they are open while actively being closed and anti-competitive. This is a win for openness. Not a loss.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoAndroid is open, there is competition otherwise there couldn't be "unfair competition".
- wredue 3y agoNo. They pretend to be open. They speak out of one side of their mouths and behave from the other.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoMy god you can install every app you want on an android phone. It's so absurd to deny this. It's not open because Google doesn't provide a billing service for every would-be app store competitor? Neither does Windows, Mac or Linux.
- janalsncm 3y agoI don’t know a ton about this lawsuit but I do know that sideloading was one of the arguments Google made, and they lost.
- twism 3y agoaint nobody suing about not being open ... unless Apple would be litigating all day. Google lost wrt that argument because they actually allow side-loading but with a scary warning that the app they are side-loading shouldn't be trusted. Epic: Waaah! we don't want to pay the app store tax. We'll take Apple and Google to court. Apple: Ha Non-Starter. Good luck with the app. Walled garden. Closed. We don't bend for anyone on this hill, etc. your honor. Never have. Never will. Google: Well we also take a cut if you want to be in our app store (although the rules are a bit more loose than Apples and hush-hush side deals) but we are a open and your users can install the app without going through our app store (side-loading). Although we will show a warning to protect users that what they are installing hasn't gone thru the review/quality/security process the app store provides. Epic: Hmm See your honor Google is putting up this scary label when we tell the users to install the app in a way that bypasses the Google tax. Judge: Yeah that does seem unfair. I'm ruling in favor of Epic against what Google is doing. Google stop putting up those scary labels! Apple Lawyers: JAJAJAJA Google: But but but... In the end Android is riddled with Malware and the OS is unusable because some app installed from a website not vetted by the review process is hogging all the resources or stealing bank info. "Android is the worst!"
- cogman10 3y agoNote: this lawsuit is actually different from the epic lawsuit. This lawsuit was brought by several states.
- gerash 3y agoWhat do you think all these point-of-sale devices (eg. Clover, etc.) or Amazon Kindle run on? It's not iOS
- twism 3y agohttps://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/main https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/main
- g-b-r 3y agoWhy was that comment downvoted??