5 ms·
TLDR: they made it up.
by shuckles 1y ago
TLDR: they made it up.
- criddell 1y agoWhat else would you expect? It’s from a tribunal. They make judgements.
- shuckles 1y agoJudgment can be grounded in reality or it can be picking a random subrange of a list of somewhat random ranges and then picking a midpoint because why not.
- bmandale 1y agoWhat would you expect them to do in this case in particular?
- shuckles 1y agoConsider Google Play, for starters.
- bmandale 1y agoGoogle play has a dominant market position as well and is presumably next for this sort of ruling
- Jalad 1y agoThe gang learns what an oligopoly is
- shuckles 1y agoWow sounds very comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered. Sounds like you agree with me that they just made it up? Or are you saying that it's fair to exclude the app store of an open platform which has plenty of "free market" competition from side loaded and 3p distribution apps because ~vibes~?
- lozenge 1y agoNot considered? The words "Google Play" are in the judgment 47 times. Maybe you could read it? By your logic, each of the two companies could use the other as an example and then both get away with breaking competition law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- shuckles 1y ago> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment.
- troupo 1y agoThey have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms" There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google." It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
- shuckles 1y ago> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).
- troupo 1y agoThis is the correct comment to reply to. Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance. The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple. It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy. I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort. Adieu.
- bondarchuk 1y agoIt cannot be grounded in reality precisely because it's a monopoly. The whole point of laws against monopolies is to let the market figure out the fair rate, or to define the "fair" rate as the one that emerges in a competitive market. So by definition of what the whole case is about it is impossible to give a fair rate in this case. If you don't want to be subjected to guesswork, stop being a monopoly and let the market figure it out.
- IshKebab 1y agoWhat else would they do?