4 ms·
It's legally settled, so, from a US law perspective, it's clearly not ant-competitive, and the US will need new legislation if that's not good enough. I figure
by montagg 3y ago
It's legally settled, so, from a US law perspective, it's clearly not ant-competitive, and the US will need new legislation if that's not good enough.
I figure you probably see this very clearly, but the problem is that a lot of people don't see it that way, and the law doesn't. Clarifying what is anti-competitive in your view, and crucially what other economic and competition trade-offs you're willing to make to realize that rule, is what will really move the conversation forward.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThe court decided that the anti-steering was anti-competitive and the SCOTUS said LGTM.
- kibwen 3y agoWe don't need to wring our hands over semantics here. If anyone could distribute software for iOS as easily as Apple can, then Apple would have more competition. Apple's actions arbitrarily prevent competition: it is anti-competitive. There is less competition because of Apple's policies. If they reversed policies, it would be more competitive. Whatever the law says, the reality is clear here.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoFor clarification, you might start by noting that recent anti-competitive rulings apply contextually to the US mobile app market.