3 ms·

When dealing with antitrust, the general assumption is that you cannot trust the company (heh). It is rather obvious that a company will do their best to interp

When dealing with antitrust, the general assumption is that you cannot trust the company (heh). It is rather obvious that a company will do their best to interpret themselves in a way where legislation is less applicable. In this particular case, the argument is silly: The users are presented with one storefront under one name, where apps can have different degrees of support, and apps can be installed on platforms they were not made for (e.g., iPhone apps on iPad or macOS) despite that they claim those are served by different "stores". If this argument was valid, you could also say that the Google Play store is not one store, but a gajillion stores for each individual Android device series - e.g., a Google Pixel phone store, a Google Pixel tablet store, a Google TV store, a Samsung phone store, a Samsung tablet store, a... It is incredibly silly, and serves only to avoid applying the legislation to e.g. Apple TV so they can keep avoiding sideloading and forcing subscription cuts there.

crazygringo 3y ago
It is also rather obvious that companies are allowed to defend themselves. "Trust" is irrelevant here -- this is a court case about facts. And your Google Play example isn't analogous, because this isn't about "device series", it's about operating systems. Samsung and Pixel phones have the same OS and generally share the same set of installable apps. I'm not saying Apple's argument is necessarily going to win. I'm just saying that it's not "silly" -- we shouldn't dismiss it like that. Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes, it's about how this particular law defines a store, for the purposes of this law only, in technical terms.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. There are all sorts of laws that have words and interpretations which could be argued either way. And the way that we choose between those interpretations is often through things like juries. IE, an every day layman's "common sense". > it's about how this particular law defines a store, And how that law defines a store, and could be interpreted between competing definitions is through common sense. It's through a human, a person, using their common sense to understand the law, and ultimately decide if that is how a store is defined.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. But common sense isn't all there is. The law is also full of technical definitions, and words which in a legal sense don't correspond to their "common" sense, which is why people spend years in law school. And like I said, there are multiple valid ways of defining the scope of a digital store. What matters here is the technical, legal definition in this particular case. Not the "common sense" of somebody on the street.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      This isn't in the US.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Defending themselves in this case takes the form of a desperate lie. I very much find it silly and made up in the last minute as it does not align with any prior communication or how the user experiences things. The Google Play example is accurate. iPadOS does not differ from iOS in this context in that they both run exactly the same applications from the same app store - application that themselves can implement iPad or iOS specific behavior of course, but that is internal to the app, not a difference in the store. In the same vein, Android TV is a separate OS from that in Google Pixels which is very different from that for a Samsung Galaxy - but they all run Android apps. Whether you give a name to the shared foundation (Android here, and what used to be iOS before they decided that iPad-specific features deserved distinct marketing) is not important - Apple users know that they see the same store with the same apps on all their devices (with an apple TV caveat as fewer developers add app support). (An app can itself declares requirements and dependencies that will hide it for particular devices, but if those filters counted the number would be way higher than 5 - it would be per-model, per-OS-minor) The Mac App Store has been marketed separately, so that makes two. An Apple TV compatible app also have to live up to some different requirements, but having apps filtered to a device based on its declared support and requirements is not different than similar restrictions within iPhone apps, and so it is not itself enough to fork the singular App Store. It is still presented as one familiar entity to users.

crazygringo 3y ago

It is also rather obvious that companies are allowed to defend themselves. "Trust" is irrelevant here -- this is a court case about facts. And your Google Play example isn't analogous, because this isn't about "device series", it's about operating systems. Samsung and Pixel phones have the same OS and generally share the same set of installable apps. I'm not saying Apple's argument is necessarily going to win. I'm just saying that it's not "silly" -- we shouldn't dismiss it like that. Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes, it's about how this particular law defines a store, for the purposes of this law only, in technical terms.

stale2002 3y ago
> Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. There are all sorts of laws that have words and interpretations which could be argued either way. And the way that we choose between those interpretations is often through things like juries. IE, an every day layman's "common sense". > it's about how this particular law defines a store, And how that law defines a store, and could be interpreted between competing definitions is through common sense. It's through a human, a person, using their common sense to understand the law, and ultimately decide if that is how a store is defined.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. But common sense isn't all there is. The law is also full of technical definitions, and words which in a legal sense don't correspond to their "common" sense, which is why people spend years in law school. And like I said, there are multiple valid ways of defining the scope of a digital store. What matters here is the technical, legal definition in this particular case. Not the "common sense" of somebody on the street.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    This isn't in the US.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
arghwhat 3y ago
Defending themselves in this case takes the form of a desperate lie. I very much find it silly and made up in the last minute as it does not align with any prior communication or how the user experiences things. The Google Play example is accurate. iPadOS does not differ from iOS in this context in that they both run exactly the same applications from the same app store - application that themselves can implement iPad or iOS specific behavior of course, but that is internal to the app, not a difference in the store. In the same vein, Android TV is a separate OS from that in Google Pixels which is very different from that for a Samsung Galaxy - but they all run Android apps. Whether you give a name to the shared foundation (Android here, and what used to be iOS before they decided that iPad-specific features deserved distinct marketing) is not important - Apple users know that they see the same store with the same apps on all their devices (with an apple TV caveat as fewer developers add app support). (An app can itself declares requirements and dependencies that will hide it for particular devices, but if those filters counted the number would be way higher than 5 - it would be per-model, per-OS-minor) The Mac App Store has been marketed separately, so that makes two. An Apple TV compatible app also have to live up to some different requirements, but having apps filtered to a device based on its declared support and requirements is not different than similar restrictions within iPhone apps, and so it is not itself enough to fork the singular App Store. It is still presented as one familiar entity to users.