2 ms·
The craziest part of this is: Apple wasn't a monopoly because they didn't share their platform with anyone The judge in the Google case said that Android coul
by Workaccount2 1y ago
The craziest part of this is:
Apple wasn't a monopoly because they didn't share their platform with anyone
The judge in the Google case said that Android couldn't be compared to iOS because iOS is only available to Apple products.
So while I can kind of squint and see this, the obvious signal the court is sending is
"If you don't want to be monopolistic, don't open your platform to anyone".
- amelius 1y agoHuh, third party developers are what made iOS big ...
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- Workaccount2 1y agoHardware platform. Which is even stranger because Samsung, by far the largest Android phone distributor, ships their phones with the galaxy app store on them.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anakaine 1y agoDo remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not the dictionary definition. From the point of defence of the dictionary definition, Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
- mathiaspoint 1y agoSure. If you claim something is open source and then make it impractical to use without closed source components you should get in trouble for that.