2 ms·

Simple. Apple never allowed side loading, from the beginning, even when they had 0.0% market share. This means it’s basically impossible to show that they have

Simple. Apple never allowed side loading, from the beginning, even when they had 0.0% market share. This means it’s basically impossible to show that they have illegally acted to maintain a monopoly - when they didn’t change anything. Having a monopoly is not illegal - changing things to keep a monopoly, is. This came up during Apple vs Epic. Did Apple change the rate to 50% when they had a monopoly? No. Did Apple retroactively ban a major app category? No. Did Apple add various fees and fines that weren’t there from the beginning? No. Did Apple force IAP, when this wasn’t initially required? No. Android, on the other hand, had a time before the Play Store and before the heavier restrictions on sideloading…

throwaway48476 2y ago
Never allowed without jailbreaking. My iOS 3 device still has Cydia.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Jailbreaking and Unlocking phones was not even legal at the time, and did not receive a DMCA exemption until 2012, so it’s legally irrelevant.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    If jailbreaking was ever illegal that just shows what a grip the copyright mafia has over this country.
mvdtnz 2y ago
No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up? The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  A. Listen to Virtual Legality for almost a day’s worth of legal analysis by an actual lawyer. This was a substantial part of the reasoning, and why Epic’s own claim of anti-competitive conduct imploded. B. You’re assuming the facts are similar for Google, as to Apple, in regards to their legal standing. They are not.
  - mvdtnz 2y ago
    I'm not going to listen to "almost a day’s worth of legal analysis" no. If you have a link to a part of the decision I'd be happy to read it.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      I can’t find the published decision anymore but did read it, but there are several summaries of the discovery that show why Epic won https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
- dagmx 2y ago
  No, they were correct and you are not. The cases are fundamentally different, and rest on the actions the two companies took. Google actively harmed other stores. Apple has no other store to harm. In the Google case, epic was able to prove anticompetitive behaviour. In the Apple case they could not prove anything outside of anti steering. The judge doesn’t even need to factor in to the case at the point that Epic failed in the Apple case. They would have failed with any judge because their case was weakened by the lack of anti competition actions
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

throwaway48476 2y ago

Never allowed without jailbreaking. My iOS 3 device still has Cydia.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Jailbreaking and Unlocking phones was not even legal at the time, and did not receive a DMCA exemption until 2012, so it’s legally irrelevant.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  If jailbreaking was ever illegal that just shows what a grip the copyright mafia has over this country.

mvdtnz 2y ago

No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up? The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
A. Listen to Virtual Legality for almost a day’s worth of legal analysis by an actual lawyer. This was a substantial part of the reasoning, and why Epic’s own claim of anti-competitive conduct imploded. B. You’re assuming the facts are similar for Google, as to Apple, in regards to their legal standing. They are not.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  I'm not going to listen to "almost a day’s worth of legal analysis" no. If you have a link to a part of the decision I'd be happy to read it.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    I can’t find the published decision anymore but did read it, but there are several summaries of the discovery that show why Epic won https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
dagmx 2y ago
No, they were correct and you are not. The cases are fundamentally different, and rest on the actions the two companies took. Google actively harmed other stores. Apple has no other store to harm. In the Google case, epic was able to prove anticompetitive behaviour. In the Apple case they could not prove anything outside of anti steering. The judge doesn’t even need to factor in to the case at the point that Epic failed in the Apple case. They would have failed with any judge because their case was weakened by the lack of anti competition actions

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]