4 ms·

Really its probably the dumbass judge that told Google "The apple app store isn't anti-competitive because they don't allow any competitors on their platform" w

Really its probably the dumbass judge that told Google "The apple app store isn't anti-competitive because they don't allow any competitors on their platform" when google asked why the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't. I cannot think of a more detached and idiotic ruling than that.

ferguess_k 11mo ago
I guess they are going to say whatever to prove the case. The legislation system is highly...closed and shun of laymen.
- tenuousemphasis 11mo ago
  It's the JUDGE that came up with that reasoning.
  - ferguess_k 11mo ago
    Yeah it's the judge.
    - saturnite 11mo ago
      I think you missed the point that judges aren't part of the legislative branch. They're in the judicial branch.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - gudnuff 11mo ago
        [dead]
      - ferguess_k 11mo ago
        Please allow me to correct my bad English and replace it with "the law circle".
  - xxpor 11mo ago
    Because that's the law, like it or not. Apple doesn't have a problem because the rules were the rules from day 1. Google did a bait and switch, legally.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      What does antitrust law have to do with "day 1"? So if Ford and GM are both already in all 50 states and then they try to divide up territory between them, that's illegal, but at the point when there were still areas one of them wasn't in, they could publicly announce a contractual agreement to not enter into the other's territory? That seems not just questionable but actively bad policy with an enormous perverse incentive. And if you're going to say this: > Because that's the law, like it or not. I would ask you to point me to the text in the statute requiring the courts to do that.
Gunax 11mo ago
Hmm, having read that, I am starting to sympathize with Google if they are going to be punished for being open. No one seems to care that Apple has never allowed freedom on their devices. Even the comments here don't seem to mention it. Google was at least open for a while. Or maybe no one mentions it just because the closed iPhone is a fait accompli at this point.
- neuralRiot 11mo ago
  Perhaps because Apple never “promised” to be open, Google instead built itself by playing the good guy and started to switch when money called so those who chose them for that reason feel betrayed.
Spivak 11mo ago
But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive. You can be Nintendo, offer a single store, only allow first party hardware, and exercise total control over your product. Then your anticompetitive behavior can only be evaluated externally. But if you open yourself up to internal competition with other phone vendors, other stores, and then you flex your other business units (gapps) to force those other vendors to favor you then you're in big trouble.
- chii 11mo ago
  > But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive That's just stupid, because being anti-competitive is an emergent outcome, rather than anything specific. Apple is definitely anti-competitive, but they exploited such a ruling so that they can skirt it. Owning a platform that no other entrants are allowed is anti-competitive - whether you're small or large. It's only when you're large that you should become a target to purge via anti-competitive laws. This allows small players to grow, but always face the threat of purging - this makes them wary of trying to take advantage too much, which results in better consumer outcomes.
  - amne 11mo ago
    That's like Karcher opening a megamall to sell all their offering, vacuums, pressure washers, floor washers, you name it .. and then you, Bosch, complaining you can't sell your vacuum in Karcher's megamall where all the people go. What are you even saying? Whereas google was letting Bosch sell vacuums in their megamall, but only if it uses Google dust filters and people buy only Google made dust filters and Bosch isn't allowed to sell their own dust filters in the megamall.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      It's like a company buying all the land within a 100 mile radius and then nominally "selling" plots to people but with terms of service attached that restrict what you can do with the land you bought and that allow the company to change the terms at any time. And then, after people have moved in, most of them having not even read the terms or realized it wasn't an ordinary sale, they start enforcing the terms against competitors. Which most people don't notice because they aren't competitors, and because the terms also prohibited anyone in the city from telling people what's going on[1]. Then people eventually notice and start to ask whether terms locking out competitors like that are an antitrust violation, and someone says that they're not because the people there agreed to them. [1] https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-new.pdf https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-n... But how is an agreement prohibiting people from patronizing competitors not an antitrust violation? It's not a matter of who agreed to it, it's matter of what they're requiring you to agree to.
viktorcode 11mo ago
The US anti trust legislation punishes the abuse of monopoly power, not being monopoly in itself. Google was found guilty in leveraging their dominating position on the platform to do just that. On the other hand in the US Apple's App Store was not found to be a monopoly in the first place. Different cases about abusing dominating position also didn't go far.

ferguess_k 11mo ago

I guess they are going to say whatever to prove the case. The legislation system is highly...closed and shun of laymen.

tenuousemphasis 11mo ago
It's the JUDGE that came up with that reasoning.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  Yeah it's the judge.
  - saturnite 11mo ago
    I think you missed the point that judges aren't part of the legislative branch. They're in the judicial branch.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gudnuff 11mo ago
      [dead]
    - ferguess_k 11mo ago
      Please allow me to correct my bad English and replace it with "the law circle".
- xxpor 11mo ago
  Because that's the law, like it or not. Apple doesn't have a problem because the rules were the rules from day 1. Google did a bait and switch, legally.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    What does antitrust law have to do with "day 1"? So if Ford and GM are both already in all 50 states and then they try to divide up territory between them, that's illegal, but at the point when there were still areas one of them wasn't in, they could publicly announce a contractual agreement to not enter into the other's territory? That seems not just questionable but actively bad policy with an enormous perverse incentive. And if you're going to say this: > Because that's the law, like it or not. I would ask you to point me to the text in the statute requiring the courts to do that.

Gunax 11mo ago

Hmm, having read that, I am starting to sympathize with Google if they are going to be punished for being open. No one seems to care that Apple has never allowed freedom on their devices. Even the comments here don't seem to mention it. Google was at least open for a while. Or maybe no one mentions it just because the closed iPhone is a fait accompli at this point.

neuralRiot 11mo ago
Perhaps because Apple never “promised” to be open, Google instead built itself by playing the good guy and started to switch when money called so those who chose them for that reason feel betrayed.

Spivak 11mo ago

But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive. You can be Nintendo, offer a single store, only allow first party hardware, and exercise total control over your product. Then your anticompetitive behavior can only be evaluated externally. But if you open yourself up to internal competition with other phone vendors, other stores, and then you flex your other business units (gapps) to force those other vendors to favor you then you're in big trouble.

chii 11mo ago
> But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive That's just stupid, because being anti-competitive is an emergent outcome, rather than anything specific. Apple is definitely anti-competitive, but they exploited such a ruling so that they can skirt it. Owning a platform that no other entrants are allowed is anti-competitive - whether you're small or large. It's only when you're large that you should become a target to purge via anti-competitive laws. This allows small players to grow, but always face the threat of purging - this makes them wary of trying to take advantage too much, which results in better consumer outcomes.
- amne 11mo ago
  That's like Karcher opening a megamall to sell all their offering, vacuums, pressure washers, floor washers, you name it .. and then you, Bosch, complaining you can't sell your vacuum in Karcher's megamall where all the people go. What are you even saying? Whereas google was letting Bosch sell vacuums in their megamall, but only if it uses Google dust filters and people buy only Google made dust filters and Bosch isn't allowed to sell their own dust filters in the megamall.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    It's like a company buying all the land within a 100 mile radius and then nominally "selling" plots to people but with terms of service attached that restrict what you can do with the land you bought and that allow the company to change the terms at any time. And then, after people have moved in, most of them having not even read the terms or realized it wasn't an ordinary sale, they start enforcing the terms against competitors. Which most people don't notice because they aren't competitors, and because the terms also prohibited anyone in the city from telling people what's going on[1]. Then people eventually notice and start to ask whether terms locking out competitors like that are an antitrust violation, and someone says that they're not because the people there agreed to them. [1] https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-new.pdf https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-n... But how is an agreement prohibiting people from patronizing competitors not an antitrust violation? It's not a matter of who agreed to it, it's matter of what they're requiring you to agree to.

viktorcode 11mo ago

The US anti trust legislation punishes the abuse of monopoly power, not being monopoly in itself. Google was found guilty in leveraging their dominating position on the platform to do just that. On the other hand in the US Apple's App Store was not found to be a monopoly in the first place. Different cases about abusing dominating position also didn't go far.