8 ms·

I think Google really made a strategic mistake by copying Apple on the payment restrictions. It kills me to see Apple and Google lumped together as "monopolies

I think Google really made a strategic mistake by copying Apple on the payment restrictions. It kills me to see Apple and Google lumped together as "monopolies" when Google's policy is IMHO 100x less monopolistic than Apple's given you can sideload and use completely different app stores, and enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device. But the payment restrictions are definitely monopolistic-style abuse. Had they not have copied that, I don't think they'd be under this microscope and losing lawsuits and what not. It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost, when Google is far less restrictive. IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior. But ironically, the reason G execs were in the position of having to buy off people and make deals to stifle competition is because of their looser reins over the platform. If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place.

jahewson 3y ago
> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can build an app in Xcode and install it on your own device. You can’t distribute that app publicly though. > G execs were in the position of having to buy off people There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is.
- ElectroNomad 3y ago
  It only works for around 10 days…
  - jahewson 3y ago
    1 year if you have a developer account, otherwise yeah 7 days?
    - bpye 3y ago
      There are also entitlements you still can’t use and a 3 app limit with a free account, at the very least.
      - jahewson 3y ago
        That’s true!
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. But tying (e.g. of an app store to a platform) is classic monopoly abuse.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Tying means forcing people to buy an undesired good when they buy a desired good. Is anybody buying an iPhone who doesn’t want the App Store?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Of course there are. There are people who like the hardware, or the OS, or don't want a green bubble, but would be happy to have F-Droid or Steam on iOS, or get a discount on existing apps by buying them through someone who charges a lower fee. Or just have the competition to Apple's store which could cause Apple to charge a lower fee themselves.
      - askonomm 3y ago
        As if Apple was some government provided service that you are entitled to because you pay taxes. It's not. It's a for-profit company of which you are not a board member. If you want F-droid, use Android. If you want App Store, use iPhone. If you want both at the same time, well, buy both phones then. People who want a Ferrari and a minivan don't ask Ferrari to make minivans, they buy both, because both together is ridiculous.
    - summerlight 3y ago
      https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-5 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... Your interpretation on tying is not well aligned with usual legal interpretation. Unless the App Store is considered not to be a separate product (which had been Apple's argument for a long time on App Store and Safari by designating them as "system services of iOS"), this is clearly tying. The question is if Apple's current practice is illegal tying or not. Whether the customer wants it or not is not important here; you can give them freely to gain market dominance then reap profits later on whenever the competitors are all gone.
- mmanfrin 3y ago
  > having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. Having a monopoly should be case enough.
  - catach 3y ago
    Maybe, but that's not US law.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior. It mainly came down to the fact that they were in different courtrooms and the higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results (possibly by overturning one of them). It's kind of an interesting case study in the arbitrariness of the law. The most important question in either case is if excluding competing app stores is permissible. It's obviously anti-competitive, but doing anti-competitive things is sometimes allowed if you have a legitimate justification. Apple's argument is presumably that they need to for security. This is, of course, BS, because a user who wanted Apple to vet all of their apps could still choose not to install any from outside of Apple's store even if Apple didn't prohibit them from doing so. Google could make the same claim -- they have to discourage these filthy competitors because some of them might not be selective enough in what they include, so suppressing them improves security -- and it would be equally BS. But then you uncover some emails that make them look unsympathetic, or admitting that the pretext is a farce, and now it's less likely they get away with the charade. The root of the problem here is that the rule that you can do something anti-competitive if you have an excuse has the potential to swallow the entire law. "Our competitors are smelly and vile and we have to protect our customers from interacting with them even if the customer explicitly wants to do that" is a generic excuse that could be used to justify any anti-competitive behavior. That's easier to see if you can read some emails conceding the underlying motive, but it's true in either case. Hopefully the higher courts will be able to see that in both cases once they've seen it in one of them.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results there are many areas of the law that don't set precedent and don't need reconciliation
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Both of the cases have been appealed. Appellate court decisions set precedent within their jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court takes the case (not unreasonable that the two could be heard together), they'll issue an opinion and create a national precedent.
toasted-subs 3y ago
Let alone you have to pay a subscription fee for Apple.
udkl 3y ago
stratechery has a reasonable explanation in one of the recent articles : "That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal. This goes back to the point I made above: Google’s fundamental legal challenge with Android is that it sought to have its cake and eat it too: it wanted all of the shine of open source and all of the reach and network effects of being a horizontal operating system provider and all of the control and profits of Apple, but the only way to do that was to pretty clearly (in my opinion) violate antitrust law." The key is 'unreasonably restrained trade' - Any OEM was eligible to use Android, but what google did was restrict competition by 'entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade' https://stratechery.com/2023/googles-true-moonshot/ https://stratechery.com/2023/googles-true-moonshot/
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I think even this is a little unfair. Almost no one buys Android because they are a horizontal operating systems provider, and OEMs don't use it because of same, because the former don't care and the latter already know the reality. People use it because it's their best option, and not due to any monopolistic practices excluding alternatives. It's just the best option.
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.
    - 3y ago
gchamonlive 3y ago
Google couldn't have been restrictive from the start because of how Android came and solidified itself. Google tapped and profitted heavily on opensource, whereas apple had not only their OS but all the hardware developed in-house, without external collaboration for the most part. The scenario surrounding iOS history lends itself pretty well for solid walled gardens
GeekyBear 3y ago
> It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost When Google chose to open the Android OS, it created a marketplace for Android devices which it attempted to control by the use of anticompetitive contracts and actions. The parallels with Microsoft and Windows are obvious. Microsoft has been found guilty of anticompetitive actions in the Windows PC marketplace it created by opening up Windows. Yet Microsoft also has the XBox, which it did not open up to other hardware makers and which is just as much of a walled garden as iOS. There have been no legal ramifications of Microsoft choosing to be the sole maker it's own product, nor of having it's product be a walled garden. It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  > It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden. The larger point being made is that once your product has a commanding share of the market, it should be illegal, as it's clearly anticompetitive by that point.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Then you will have to make it illegal for Microsoft to have products like Microsoft Office or XBox that it has not opened up.
    - 0xFF0123 3y ago
      I would understand the argument that the office doc file format should be public and understandable, but I don't see an argument that the program itself should be open.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        I believe the argument that grandparent comment made was that "once your product has a commanding share of the market, it should be illegal, as it's clearly anticompetitive by that point"
nicce 3y ago
> If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place. Difference here is that Apple manufactures and controls all the devices but Google does not. When Google’s decisions impact other manufactures or they even are dependent on it, it becomes monopoly problem. But Apple does not impact anybody else.
- amplex1337 3y ago
  It doesn't impact anyone? Including the 1.46 billion iPhone users?
  - nicce 3y ago
    In the context of monopoly, it does not, at least yet. 1. Apple does not have monopoly position in phone market. People can still choose good alternative products. Current users have chosen the iPhone. 2. Since Apple does not intentionally make deals or hinder competition among other companies, no monopoly problem for that reason either.
orenlindsey 3y ago
I agree, Google is wayyyy less monopolistic than Apple. And it's absolutely hilarious that Google lost while Apple won.
madeofpalk 3y ago
The jury found that Google created a market of Android app distribution, and then they squashed competition in that market. No just market exists for Apple (it's an entirely closed and self-contained ecosystem) so there was no need to 'squash competition' - it just doesn't exist! https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...
hakdbha 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shwouchk 3y ago
The difference is that apple is and always was, explicitly a closed platform. Take it or leave it. Google on the other hand, tried to market android as an open platform with eg many OEMs producing hardware for it, but the reality is that they are anything but.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device That's a great way to fail hardware attestation. It makes my bank's app assume I'm a fraudster and refuse me service. Google absolutely deserves to be lumped in with the likes of Apple because of stuff like this. They sell people "open" systems and then they punish them when they "tamper" with the system. I can only hope some government out there will put an end to their little digital fiefdoms.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I have never had a device fail attestation because of developer mode being enabled. Not even bank or Nintendo apps. Are you thinking of unlocking the bootloader? That is different than just enabling developer mode so you can adb install apps and other things on the device.
dilawar 3y ago
I read that apple case was heard by a judge and Google case by a jury. Apparently a jury tends to be less rigorous at interpretation of laws than a judge?! Not surprising (I saw the movie 8 (or 12) angry men).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jongjong 3y ago
I don't understand why anyone uses Apple. I feel like they've all been brainwashed. Ubuntu is way better, especially for tech-savvy users. Only times I used Apple was at work because I was forced to. I was forced to use Apple by 3 different companies. It's essentially a cult. I hated using it and it slowed me down significantly. The tech industry is essentially a giant PsyOp and only brainwashed, highly suggestible people can participate. I think governments should treat these megacorps as what they are; foreign intelligence operations to gain power over citizens.
- amplex1337 3y ago
  Could not have said it better, I have found the same experience myself in the tech realm, I much prefer Linux to any other operating system for obvious reasons. Apple has convinced a large amount of the population that they need to be locked into a walled garden to be 'safe' which is a) a lie, b) hugely anti-competitive and c) has made Apple more money than they know what to do with. They repeatedly have the most cash on hand of any company in the world. Apple pays 0 tax every year in the US due to loopholes and is a large drag on the economy for this reason, they are cash hoarders. Kids in school are brainwashed to think they need some shiny new apple phone to be part of the cool crowd. It's just a status symbol more than anything at this point even though it's an objectively worse system than the alternatives in many ways. IMO they are selling the smug attitude and talking points more than any new features. It's all marketing gimmicks every step of the way. Apple stores and their techs being called 'geniuses'? Everything down to the design of the store makes you feel like you are in some kind of tech dystopian nightmare, it's all image. The lock-in to the OS and App store should be enough for an antitrust case in the US IMO, but the US cares more about corporate money than protecting its people. Additionally they have been found to slow down old devices purposefully, the right to repair is non-existent (good luck with this Apple!), not to consider the environmental impact on creating all these phones that are worthless if you want to run something different than apple iOS, and the fact that privacy is not valued nearly as much as Apple leads you to believe. There is still data harvesting going on at Apple, it's a revenue stream that is too tempting to large companies. They can access any of your iCloud data at any time unless you opt-in to ADP. There have been many times Apple was found to be lying, or not telling the whole truth about the privacy of users using their platform, like the location data issues in 2019, there have been privacy/tracking lawsuits in 2022, 2023, etc. There have been many security issues found with apple products that have never had a CVE, the proper security response, so as to obscure proof of the flaw, without proper disclosure. Security fixes are hidden many times and the end users not made aware of the issues. I have met many uninformed professionals in my space unaware of this due to drinking the apple Koolaid. Or they commonly don't care because family uses them, etc. Now that the platform is as far-reaching, we are starting to see many exploits for Apple products, including ransomware, malware, etc so their remaining time that many people unrealistically regard them as the 'most secure platform' is limited. We are starting to see safari/webkit 1 click and 0click exploits very commonly. There are probably millions of other security holes to be found in their platform, just like any other. ML and great minds will help us find them over time. I'm not saying that Android doesn't have any issues, etc. The difference is that one platform pretends to be better than the others and has been found to have been lying or not telling the whole truth in the past, many times. They are a shady company as well, and the whole market needs much more regulation. The EU seems to be leading the way on this.
SllX 3y ago
I mean you said it: Google sold Android has one thing but secretly stifled it from actually being that thing. Apple doesn't even offer iOS as a product, it's an integrated product component developed in-house just like their A-series chips. They don't offer the App Store as a product, it's an integrated product-component just like the Camera. Apple took the console approach and Google took the Wintel-ish approach, and that led to a different series of business decisions that created a different set of market conditions involving a different set of business partners that created a different set of facts and a different set of case records when Epic sued them both. It's not like Apple didn't put anything in writing, but the stuff that made them look bad only made them look bad in the PR sense, not a legal sense. Apple's restrictions on the iPhone are technologically and contractually enforced through a standard agreement that every developer agrees to, whereas Android doesn't have any technological restrictions, just Google's lawyers going around paying off would-be competitors to not compete with Google Play which is a huge difference given that Android is supposedly open and that was one of its original selling points. Personally I still don't think Google should have lost their case with Epic at the District level, maybe hammered a bit under State antitrust law enforcement for the payoffs to not compete with them, but not lost to Epic; but they did lose their case at the District level to Epic so that's completely on them.

jahewson 3y ago

> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can build an app in Xcode and install it on your own device. You can’t distribute that app publicly though. > G execs were in the position of having to buy off people There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is.

ElectroNomad 3y ago
It only works for around 10 days…
- jahewson 3y ago
  1 year if you have a developer account, otherwise yeah 7 days?
  - bpye 3y ago
    There are also entitlements you still can’t use and a 3 app limit with a free account, at the very least.
    - jahewson 3y ago
      That’s true!
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. But tying (e.g. of an app store to a platform) is classic monopoly abuse.
- junofan 3y ago
  Tying means forcing people to buy an undesired good when they buy a desired good. Is anybody buying an iPhone who doesn’t want the App Store?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Of course there are. There are people who like the hardware, or the OS, or don't want a green bubble, but would be happy to have F-Droid or Steam on iOS, or get a discount on existing apps by buying them through someone who charges a lower fee. Or just have the competition to Apple's store which could cause Apple to charge a lower fee themselves.
    - askonomm 3y ago
      As if Apple was some government provided service that you are entitled to because you pay taxes. It's not. It's a for-profit company of which you are not a board member. If you want F-droid, use Android. If you want App Store, use iPhone. If you want both at the same time, well, buy both phones then. People who want a Ferrari and a minivan don't ask Ferrari to make minivans, they buy both, because both together is ridiculous.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-5 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... Your interpretation on tying is not well aligned with usual legal interpretation. Unless the App Store is considered not to be a separate product (which had been Apple's argument for a long time on App Store and Safari by designating them as "system services of iOS"), this is clearly tying. The question is if Apple's current practice is illegal tying or not. Whether the customer wants it or not is not important here; you can give them freely to gain market dominance then reap profits later on whenever the competitors are all gone.
mmanfrin 3y ago
> having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. Having a monopoly should be case enough.
- catach 3y ago
  Maybe, but that's not US law.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> IANAL but from what I've understood it mainly came down to the fact that G execs put the stuff in writing whereas Apple did not, so with G there was some real damning evidence of the anti-competitive behavior. It mainly came down to the fact that they were in different courtrooms and the higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results (possibly by overturning one of them). It's kind of an interesting case study in the arbitrariness of the law. The most important question in either case is if excluding competing app stores is permissible. It's obviously anti-competitive, but doing anti-competitive things is sometimes allowed if you have a legitimate justification. Apple's argument is presumably that they need to for security. This is, of course, BS, because a user who wanted Apple to vet all of their apps could still choose not to install any from outside of Apple's store even if Apple didn't prohibit them from doing so. Google could make the same claim -- they have to discourage these filthy competitors because some of them might not be selective enough in what they include, so suppressing them improves security -- and it would be equally BS. But then you uncover some emails that make them look unsympathetic, or admitting that the pretext is a farce, and now it's less likely they get away with the charade. The root of the problem here is that the rule that you can do something anti-competitive if you have an excuse has the potential to swallow the entire law. "Our competitors are smelly and vile and we have to protect our customers from interacting with them even if the customer explicitly wants to do that" is a generic excuse that could be used to justify any anti-competitive behavior. That's easier to see if you can read some emails conceding the underlying motive, but it's true in either case. Hopefully the higher courts will be able to see that in both cases once they've seen it in one of them.

fsckboy 3y ago
>higher-level appellate courts haven't yet decided how they're going to reconcile the results there are many areas of the law that don't set precedent and don't need reconciliation
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Both of the cases have been appealed. Appellate court decisions set precedent within their jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court takes the case (not unreasonable that the two could be heard together), they'll issue an opinion and create a national precedent.

toasted-subs 3y ago

Let alone you have to pay a subscription fee for Apple.

udkl 3y ago

stratechery has a reasonable explanation in one of the recent articles : "That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal. This goes back to the point I made above: Google’s fundamental legal challenge with Android is that it sought to have its cake and eat it too: it wanted all of the shine of open source and all of the reach and network effects of being a horizontal operating system provider and all of the control and profits of Apple, but the only way to do that was to pretty clearly (in my opinion) violate antitrust law." The key is 'unreasonably restrained trade' - Any OEM was eligible to use Android, but what google did was restrict competition by 'entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade' https://stratechery.com/2023/googles-true-moonshot/ https://stratechery.com/2023/googles-true-moonshot/

robertlagrant 3y ago
I think even this is a little unfair. Almost no one buys Android because they are a horizontal operating systems provider, and OEMs don't use it because of same, because the former don't care and the latter already know the reality. People use it because it's their best option, and not due to any monopolistic practices excluding alternatives. It's just the best option.
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.
  - 3y ago

gchamonlive 3y ago

Google couldn't have been restrictive from the start because of how Android came and solidified itself. Google tapped and profitted heavily on opensource, whereas apple had not only their OS but all the hardware developed in-house, without external collaboration for the most part. The scenario surrounding iOS history lends itself pretty well for solid walled gardens

GeekyBear 3y ago

> It does still blow my mind that Apple won their lawsuit from Epic, yet Google lost When Google chose to open the Android OS, it created a marketplace for Android devices which it attempted to control by the use of anticompetitive contracts and actions. The parallels with Microsoft and Windows are obvious. Microsoft has been found guilty of anticompetitive actions in the Windows PC marketplace it created by opening up Windows. Yet Microsoft also has the XBox, which it did not open up to other hardware makers and which is just as much of a walled garden as iOS. There have been no legal ramifications of Microsoft choosing to be the sole maker it's own product, nor of having it's product be a walled garden. It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden.

CydeWeys 3y ago
> It's not illegal to have a monopoly over your own product and it's not illegal to have a walled garden. The larger point being made is that once your product has a commanding share of the market, it should be illegal, as it's clearly anticompetitive by that point.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Then you will have to make it illegal for Microsoft to have products like Microsoft Office or XBox that it has not opened up.
  - 0xFF0123 3y ago
    I would understand the argument that the office doc file format should be public and understandable, but I don't see an argument that the program itself should be open.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      I believe the argument that grandparent comment made was that "once your product has a commanding share of the market, it should be illegal, as it's clearly anticompetitive by that point"

nicce 3y ago

> If they'd been draconian and hyper-controlling from the start, refusing side-loading and similar like Apple does, they wouldn't have had to pay people off and make deals to crush competition as that competition couldn't have even gotten off the ground in the first place. Difference here is that Apple manufactures and controls all the devices but Google does not. When Google’s decisions impact other manufactures or they even are dependent on it, it becomes monopoly problem. But Apple does not impact anybody else.

amplex1337 3y ago
It doesn't impact anyone? Including the 1.46 billion iPhone users?
- nicce 3y ago
  In the context of monopoly, it does not, at least yet. 1. Apple does not have monopoly position in phone market. People can still choose good alternative products. Current users have chosen the iPhone. 2. Since Apple does not intentionally make deals or hinder competition among other companies, no monopoly problem for that reason either.

orenlindsey 3y ago

I agree, Google is wayyyy less monopolistic than Apple. And it's absolutely hilarious that Google lost while Apple won.

madeofpalk 3y ago

The jury found that Google created a market of Android app distribution, and then they squashed competition in that market. No just market exists for Apple (it's an entirely closed and self-contained ecosystem) so there was no need to 'squash competition' - it just doesn't exist! https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...

hakdbha 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

shwouchk 3y ago

The difference is that apple is and always was, explicitly a closed platform. Take it or leave it. Google on the other hand, tried to market android as an open platform with eg many OEMs producing hardware for it, but the reality is that they are anything but.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device That's a great way to fail hardware attestation. It makes my bank's app assume I'm a fraudster and refuse me service. Google absolutely deserves to be lumped in with the likes of Apple because of stuff like this. They sell people "open" systems and then they punish them when they "tamper" with the system. I can only hope some government out there will put an end to their little digital fiefdoms.

freedomben 3y ago
I have never had a device fail attestation because of developer mode being enabled. Not even bank or Nintendo apps. Are you thinking of unlocking the bootloader? That is different than just enabling developer mode so you can adb install apps and other things on the device.

dilawar 3y ago

I read that apple case was heard by a judge and Google case by a jury. Apparently a jury tends to be less rigorous at interpretation of laws than a judge?! Not surprising (I saw the movie 8 (or 12) angry men).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jongjong 3y ago

I don't understand why anyone uses Apple. I feel like they've all been brainwashed. Ubuntu is way better, especially for tech-savvy users. Only times I used Apple was at work because I was forced to. I was forced to use Apple by 3 different companies. It's essentially a cult. I hated using it and it slowed me down significantly. The tech industry is essentially a giant PsyOp and only brainwashed, highly suggestible people can participate. I think governments should treat these megacorps as what they are; foreign intelligence operations to gain power over citizens.

amplex1337 3y ago
Could not have said it better, I have found the same experience myself in the tech realm, I much prefer Linux to any other operating system for obvious reasons. Apple has convinced a large amount of the population that they need to be locked into a walled garden to be 'safe' which is a) a lie, b) hugely anti-competitive and c) has made Apple more money than they know what to do with. They repeatedly have the most cash on hand of any company in the world. Apple pays 0 tax every year in the US due to loopholes and is a large drag on the economy for this reason, they are cash hoarders. Kids in school are brainwashed to think they need some shiny new apple phone to be part of the cool crowd. It's just a status symbol more than anything at this point even though it's an objectively worse system than the alternatives in many ways. IMO they are selling the smug attitude and talking points more than any new features. It's all marketing gimmicks every step of the way. Apple stores and their techs being called 'geniuses'? Everything down to the design of the store makes you feel like you are in some kind of tech dystopian nightmare, it's all image. The lock-in to the OS and App store should be enough for an antitrust case in the US IMO, but the US cares more about corporate money than protecting its people. Additionally they have been found to slow down old devices purposefully, the right to repair is non-existent (good luck with this Apple!), not to consider the environmental impact on creating all these phones that are worthless if you want to run something different than apple iOS, and the fact that privacy is not valued nearly as much as Apple leads you to believe. There is still data harvesting going on at Apple, it's a revenue stream that is too tempting to large companies. They can access any of your iCloud data at any time unless you opt-in to ADP. There have been many times Apple was found to be lying, or not telling the whole truth about the privacy of users using their platform, like the location data issues in 2019, there have been privacy/tracking lawsuits in 2022, 2023, etc. There have been many security issues found with apple products that have never had a CVE, the proper security response, so as to obscure proof of the flaw, without proper disclosure. Security fixes are hidden many times and the end users not made aware of the issues. I have met many uninformed professionals in my space unaware of this due to drinking the apple Koolaid. Or they commonly don't care because family uses them, etc. Now that the platform is as far-reaching, we are starting to see many exploits for Apple products, including ransomware, malware, etc so their remaining time that many people unrealistically regard them as the 'most secure platform' is limited. We are starting to see safari/webkit 1 click and 0click exploits very commonly. There are probably millions of other security holes to be found in their platform, just like any other. ML and great minds will help us find them over time. I'm not saying that Android doesn't have any issues, etc. The difference is that one platform pretends to be better than the others and has been found to have been lying or not telling the whole truth in the past, many times. They are a shady company as well, and the whole market needs much more regulation. The EU seems to be leading the way on this.

SllX 3y ago

I mean you said it: Google sold Android has one thing but secretly stifled it from actually being that thing. Apple doesn't even offer iOS as a product, it's an integrated product component developed in-house just like their A-series chips. They don't offer the App Store as a product, it's an integrated product-component just like the Camera. Apple took the console approach and Google took the Wintel-ish approach, and that led to a different series of business decisions that created a different set of market conditions involving a different set of business partners that created a different set of facts and a different set of case records when Epic sued them both. It's not like Apple didn't put anything in writing, but the stuff that made them look bad only made them look bad in the PR sense, not a legal sense. Apple's restrictions on the iPhone are technologically and contractually enforced through a standard agreement that every developer agrees to, whereas Android doesn't have any technological restrictions, just Google's lawyers going around paying off would-be competitors to not compete with Google Play which is a huge difference given that Android is supposedly open and that was one of its original selling points. Personally I still don't think Google should have lost their case with Epic at the District level, maybe hammered a bit under State antitrust law enforcement for the payoffs to not compete with them, but not lost to Epic; but they did lose their case at the District level to Epic so that's completely on them.