• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    So, Google allows other OEMs to use their OS and tries to control how it’s used = anti-competitive.

    Apple doesn’t let anyone else use their OS = totally fine?

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.

      Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They’re using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive.

        You’re dictating the ToU of your software. They have zero control over others’ hardware.

        No one is arguing that Google isn’t anti-competitive, just that Apple is also anti-competitive, in a similar but even worse manner because its not even available to others…

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That’s the monopoly they’re abusing, and that’s what Epic is suing for.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google’s arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.

              This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That’s textbook anticompetitive.

              It’s not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I honestly don’t understand anything you said. There’s a refresh rate requirement for Android? And the refresh rate requirement made it convoluted for people to enable the Play Store?

                • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There’s a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.

                  Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That’s not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    There’s a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.

                    Is there? I’ve seen lots of Android e-readers that are way less. Maybe just because they’re Chinese and don’t give a shit. Presumably that requirement is to ensure a positive experience for Android users. Android is obviously not intended to be used for e-readers.

                    Regardless, a limitation of your OS is absolutely not in any way more anti-competitive than not distributing an OS at all. I feel like this is pretty straightforward…