3 ms·

It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here. In real court (with real lawyers

by ssl-3 2y ago

It's not a court of public opinion. This isn't a popularity contest; they're not running for public office or something here. In real court (with real lawyers and real judges), precedent often matters (often, it matters quite a lot). Informing the court of [what may be] meaningful precedent is important; without this deliberate informative step, the court might not know about it at all. The court cannot take anything into consideration that it has no knowledge of. (Despite the black robes and literal ban-hammers, judges aren't all-seeing or all-knowing.)

kelnos 2y ago
Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open. In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole. Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
    - underbiding 2y ago
      The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).
      - eru 2y ago
        I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?
        reissbaker 2y ago
        Yeah the code being open-source vs closed-source didn't have anything to do with the legal ruling here. The judge claimed that the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store are not competitors (LMFAO), and therefore Google can be held liable even if Apple wasn't. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... (FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
        adam_arthur 2y ago
        They aren't direct competitors. You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls. Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store. Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive. It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill. Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them? Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching. If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.
rezonant 2y ago
I'm not worried that Google forgot to tell the judge about the other ruling. Pretty sure they are competent enough to try.
- concinds 2y ago
  They were not allowed to.

by ssl-3 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

Did the Apple Epic decision go all the way up to SCOTUS? If not, any precedent set by a lower court would be limited to its district/circuit.

mvdtnz 2y ago
They were both in the same court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
- reissbaker 2y ago
  Although Epic appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS rejected their appeal, which makes it seem like SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that app stores have to be open. In general the judicial system's bizarre treatment of Apple baffles and somewhat infuriates me. If Google has to allow alternative app stores on Android due to monopoly power, and has to allow alternate billing options due to monopoly power, and yet is the smaller of the two in the U.S., how on Earth does the legal system continue to give a free pass to Apple doing the same thing while having more market power in the U.S. than Google? It's obscene and makes me deeply question the integrity of the judicial system in the U.S. as a whole. Personally I think both Google and Apple should have to open up their app store system and billing systems more broadly, but it's pretty despicable for the judicial system to simply pick winners and losers like this.
  - underbiding 2y ago
    The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).
    - eru 2y ago
      I'm not sure the legal system cares about that?
      - reissbaker 2y ago
        Yeah the code being open-source vs closed-source didn't have anything to do with the legal ruling here. The judge claimed that the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store are not competitors (LMFAO), and therefore Google can be held liable even if Apple wasn't. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... (FWIW, the journalist who wrote both articles is ethically barred from reporting on Apple due to his wife being an Apple employee, but still apparently covers Google/Android, so... Take the slant of his coverage with a grain of salt.)
        adam_arthur 2y ago
        They aren't direct competitors. You have two walled gardens and two monopoly-esque distribution platforms within those walls. Nobody with an iPhone can use Google Play, and nobody with an Android can use the app store. Which is why disallowing, or hindering, competing app stores within one walled garden is clearly anti-competitive. It's not reasonable to expect consumers in one ecosystem to completely leave the ecosystem for one specific app, just like it's not reasonable to expect a homeowner to sell their house and move somewhere just so they can pay a lower utility bill. Is the utility company serving your house a competitor with the utility company across the street if I have to move houses to switch between them? Yes, if you look at the market as a whole. Clearly not if you use a reasonable interpretation and consider costs of switching. If Apple and Google are truly providing unique value to developers and consumers, then they have nothing to fear from alternative app stores. Their profits won't be affected.

rezonant 2y ago

I'm not worried that Google forgot to tell the judge about the other ruling. Pretty sure they are competent enough to try.

concinds 2y ago
They were not allowed to.