• deweydecibel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3511 months ago

    Because iOS is Apple’s OS on Apple’s hardware. The court ruled they could do what they want. Android is not Google’s OS, even if it’s mostly theirs, and they certainly have no control over the hardware apart from Pixels.

    Competition is possible on Android in a way it isn’t on iOS. Google was being anti-competitive in a space where others can compete, Apple was just being a bully in their own backyard.

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4611 months ago

      That’s a really bad way to look at it if that’s really what it boils down to.

      • @blackfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1511 months ago

        They are unfortunately correct. Its the same sort of argument that got Microsoft. If they don’t allow competition from the start its fine if they do and work to undermine that competition then its by definition anti competitive and monopolistic. Crazy I know.

        • @d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          work to undermine that competition then its by definition anti competitive and monopolistic.

          But what exactly did they do though? Several OEMs have their own app stores (Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo etc) and they’re not restricted in any way, nor is the Play Store promoted over their native app stores on those devices. Finally, you’re free to download any app store (F-Droid, Aurora, Apptoide) etc on pretty much every Android phone. So what exactly is anti-competitive here?

          • @LibreFish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            911 months ago

            nor is the Play Store promoted over their native app stores on those devices

            Google actually forces it’s installation if you want to use the android trademark. It’d probably be pretty hard to market “MotorolaOS”

            • @d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              611 months ago

              I don’t see the issue here. Is it really that bad to bundle your own apps in your own OS? Also, even though they bundle the store, it’s not like they’re forcing you to use it, nor is it prominently promoted over any other native stores.

              • @LibreFish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I think the issue could be that it’s forcing the companies to include it, even if the company can include alternatives as well or when user can just ignore it. Not a lawyer, but back when Apple was in the courts I heard social media lawyers saying that Google actually had a worse prospect because when you force your competitors (other non-google phone makers that use Android forks) to bundle G Play/Services it can be considered “tying”. Then if a company just uses the GPL code without following the contractual rules like that they can’t advertise Android and it it could hurt their market share.

          • MrScottyTay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            511 months ago

            Just spitballing, but maybe the Google play services that lots of apps require to run? So even if you have a third party store you likely still need those services that also lump in a bunch of other stuff for Google’s benefit.

            • @d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              You don’t need to use the Google Play Services at all. Developers only use it because it’s convenient, but you’re not forced to use it. A lot of users here on Lemmy for example (myself included) use alt stores like F-Droid, Droid-ify etc without any issues.