5 ms·

Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-c

Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-competitive?" It's no surprise that Google will start mirroring Apple more if closed ecosystems cannot be monopolies.

seanw444 1y ago
Our legal system is such a joke.
- nine_k 1y ago
  You mean, it does not have competition?
  - sigmar 1y ago
    I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
    - CWuestefeld 1y ago
      the courts would rather google control If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil. Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
      - GeekyBear 1y ago
        The courts judge violations of antitrust law. If you create an open platform it is subject to antitrust law. Ask Microsoft about the difference in the legal restrictions on what they are allowed to do on their Windows platform vs their Xbox platform.
  - red_rech 1y ago
    It does, but open borders are for capital, not you.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
gjsman-1000 1y ago
The government isn't worried about control, but economics. Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.) As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.
kotaKat 1y ago
And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so. "Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%." https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-be-able-to-sell-in-game-items https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-... But hey, I can surely launch my own storefront to sell in-game items on top of Fortnite right? Right? Oh.
GeekyBear 1y ago
If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply. Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions. If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions. That's how the existing law works. If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.

seanw444 1y ago

Our legal system is such a joke.

nine_k 1y ago
You mean, it does not have competition?
- sigmar 1y ago
  I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
  - CWuestefeld 1y ago
    the courts would rather google control If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil. Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
    - GeekyBear 1y ago
      The courts judge violations of antitrust law. If you create an open platform it is subject to antitrust law. Ask Microsoft about the difference in the legal restrictions on what they are allowed to do on their Windows platform vs their Xbox platform.
- red_rech 1y ago
  It does, but open borders are for capital, not you.
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

gjsman-1000 1y ago

The government isn't worried about control, but economics. Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.) As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.

kotaKat 1y ago

And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so. "Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%." https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-be-able-to-sell-in-game-items https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-... But hey, I can surely launch my own storefront to sell in-game items on top of Fortnite right? Right? Oh.

GeekyBear 1y ago

If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply. Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions. If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions. That's how the existing law works. If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.