24
Google’s Android app store monopoly violates antitrust law, jury finds
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
24 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
7233 readers
148 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Surely Apple is at least as guilty, if not moreso? I can run graphene and install apps completely free from Google's ecosystem.
Apple won because it wasn't a jury trial, Google asked for a jury trial and the jury found them guilty in 3 hours of deliberations.
Apple won because they didn’t show preference to specific companies with under the table deals like Google is doing, not because it was a jury trial.
While that was their argument, it's literally false. Just see the different exceptions they have for companies like Spotify and Netflix. They are actually about to lose the antitrust case in EU against Spotify.
Legally, there might arguments that Apple can justify their monopoly, but in a jury trial they would have lost.
You didn't even bother to read your own links. The exceptions aren't for spotify and netflix, they're for all reader apps, like spotify and netflix. It's literally the reason they won the case in america. The second link actually proves what I'm claiming more, they aren't favoring Spotify or any specific app store company, they are favoring their own apps and have different rules for those on the app store. Neither of which is why google lost. Google is giving specific companies on their app store favorable terms.
you can claim this all you want, but all evidence points to the contrary.
It's the same policies on both sides. Google have exceptions for some companies and Apple have exceptions for some companies, I never said it's only for Spotify or Netflix. And Google favors their 1st party apps same as Apple. It's literally identical business model, the only difference for now being Google allowing side loading, which soon will be mandatory in the EU.
So no matter how unhappy that might make you, the logical conclusion for different verdict comes down to jury trial vs. judge trial. And if the win against Google is upheld in the appeals courts, that will create a precedent and then a new party (or same party with different case) can take Apple to court again with this case on their side.
Google has exceptions for specific companies, while Apple has exceptions for classes of companies. There is entirely a difference, hence the difference in court case outcomes "no matter how unhappy that might make you".
as I point out above, you are completely ignoring the defining factor in the two cases. Classes of apps versus specific apps.
no, it will not, I'm sorry, but you are very wrong about this.