Technology

59653 readers

3433 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

351

US judge orders Google to open app store to competitors (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago by logos@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's not in any way a limitation of the OS.

Requiring a specific refresh rate for the OS to be installed isn't "in any way" a limitation of the OS? Not sure how you arrived at that.

And again, your core concept isn't just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is.

No, I think you just don't understand that I am not having a legal discussion. I am having a rational discussion. If the law is irrational, then it is fucked and needs to be updated. Imposing rules that apply to businesses that are more competitive by sharing their IP (with caveats), then going back and saying that other businesses that operate in essentially the exact same space, but refuse to share any IP (anti-competitive), are exempt from such regulations, is fucked.

Neither of them are okay, and both should be regulated more heavily, but the fact that the more competitive one faces more penalties is fucked and just further enforces Apple's "walled garden" ideology, as well as encouraging other businesses to operate similarly.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It has nothing to do with the OS. It's for the play store. But again, a limitation of the OS would be something that the OS can't do, not the OS just refusing to allow hardware for business reasons.

Your opinion on rational is just as flawed. People should be able to make their own products. It's specifically pretending to be open to form a standard that multiple independent companies join in on, then unilaterally controlling that standard to make decisions for the entire market that's abusive.

There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware. Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment. It's not what a monopoly is. Controlling the behavior of hundreds of competing products is a monopoly.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

People should be able to make their own products.

Of course they should. You're intentionally missing the point. They should not be allowed to make their products anti-competitive and anti-consumer by preventing the user from installing the software they want to use, in order to funnel more money into their pockets and essentially extorting it from businesses that want to write software for its' customers with exorbitant fees.

There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware.

And they shouldn't be allowed to do that either. And especially not if they become one of the top 5 wealthiest companies on the face of the Earth in the process.

Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment.

And absolutely nothing about allowing users to install whatever software they want without paying extortionate and exorbitant fees to Apple impedes that strength.

It's not what a monopoly is

Fucking el oh ol. There's simply no world where Google is a monopoly and Apple isn't, and the insinuation of such can only be described as fanboyism.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive. You can't just re-define words to mean something that's the exact opposite of what they are. The locked down system of Apple and consoles is their biggest value add. It's not "something I tolerate to buy an iPhone". It's why I buy an iPhone. They make so much money because their control of their own product makes it better. There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on your own hardware. It's literally impossible.

Google is a monopoly because they are controlling the behavior of competitors with their market position. That is always a monopoly. Controlling your own product never is.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive.

That entirely depends on what part of "your systems" you're controlling. When you control how users of "your systems" can interact with other businesses, it absolutely is. When you say "if you want to create software that runs on our hardware, you have to adhere to all of our guidelines, no matter how absurd, and pay us 30% of any revenue received through this software" that's anticompetitive...

The locked down system of Apple and consoles is hair biggest value add.

LOOOOOOOLOLOL okay so you're not just a fanboy, you're a shill!

Good talk. Bye bye now.