11 ms·

It’s because Google did a lot of things that Apple didn’t that was found to be anti-competitive. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrus

by vlozko 3y ago

It’s because Google did a lot of things that Apple didn’t that was found to be anti-competitive. https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...

shmerl 3y ago
I'm sure they did their own stuff, but Apple got away with a very nasty one. So I don't think competition law works. Results look completely random, like tossing a coin.
- martimarkov 3y ago
  Being sued for different things - yeah you tend to get different results. And what is the definition of nasty here? It's very subjective. Apple doesn't own the mobile market and are below 50% control of it so they are not really a monopoly. I'm also not sure how you can use anti-trust or anti-monopoly against them when they have been found again and again to not be a monopoly.
  - shmerl 3y ago
    Banning competing browsers is illegal and Apple should have never gotten away with it. Not only an abstract absolute monopoly is a problem. Apple has a lot of leverage on the industry and is causing harm to the market with anti-competitive behavior.
jefftk 3y ago
Yes, but in a weird way: Apple doesn't allow competition for phone manufacturing for their ecosystem, so the equivalent of "deals with manufacturers" are entirely internal. Fostering a phone ecosystem that overall has more competition has hurt Google here.
- LordKeren 3y ago
  No, paying off phone manufacturers and companies to not create or preinstall third party app stores on to devices is what hurt Google here
  - wvenable 3y ago
    Which is similar to what Microsoft did with PC manufacturers to kill off alternative operating systems.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    Right, which is not something Apple "needed" to do because they didn't allow competition in the iOS phone manufacturing business.
    - LordKeren 3y ago
      Google didn’t need to pay these companies either. They chose to do it so they could keep their play store monopoly. And they may have just burning billions in profits because of it
      - jefftk 3y ago
        Right, which is why I put the term in quotes. But Apple got that for free, since they didn't open up manufacturing.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I think you mean "and", not "no". The semi-open ecosystem is a prerequisite to the payoffs.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  So the moral of these decisions are "Go vertical, or go home?"
stevenwoo 3y ago
For a second I thought you just posted the same link but that was very informative. It's just me but I think Google deleting all the chats automatically about the topics involved would have had me planted deep suspicion about motive in my mind.

by vlozko 3y ago

shmerl 3y ago

I'm sure they did their own stuff, but Apple got away with a very nasty one. So I don't think competition law works. Results look completely random, like tossing a coin.

martimarkov 3y ago
Being sued for different things - yeah you tend to get different results. And what is the definition of nasty here? It's very subjective. Apple doesn't own the mobile market and are below 50% control of it so they are not really a monopoly. I'm also not sure how you can use anti-trust or anti-monopoly against them when they have been found again and again to not be a monopoly.
- shmerl 3y ago
  Banning competing browsers is illegal and Apple should have never gotten away with it. Not only an abstract absolute monopoly is a problem. Apple has a lot of leverage on the industry and is causing harm to the market with anti-competitive behavior.

jefftk 3y ago

Yes, but in a weird way: Apple doesn't allow competition for phone manufacturing for their ecosystem, so the equivalent of "deals with manufacturers" are entirely internal. Fostering a phone ecosystem that overall has more competition has hurt Google here.

LordKeren 3y ago
No, paying off phone manufacturers and companies to not create or preinstall third party app stores on to devices is what hurt Google here
- wvenable 3y ago
  Which is similar to what Microsoft did with PC manufacturers to kill off alternative operating systems.
- jefftk 3y ago
  Right, which is not something Apple "needed" to do because they didn't allow competition in the iOS phone manufacturing business.
  - LordKeren 3y ago
    Google didn’t need to pay these companies either. They chose to do it so they could keep their play store monopoly. And they may have just burning billions in profits because of it
    - jefftk 3y ago
      Right, which is why I put the term in quotes. But Apple got that for free, since they didn't open up manufacturing.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I think you mean "and", not "no". The semi-open ecosystem is a prerequisite to the payoffs.
aidenn0 3y ago
So the moral of these decisions are "Go vertical, or go home?"

stevenwoo 3y ago

For a second I thought you just posted the same link but that was very informative. It's just me but I think Google deleting all the chats automatically about the topics involved would have had me planted deep suspicion about motive in my mind.