Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    11 months ago

    ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html

        It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.

        • bigFab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          Totally agree with your idea, but so you know Apple has lost another legal fight. Europe condemnes it for monopoly of not only App Store, but also Safari and other services. About a month ago.

          • yamanii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            The browser monopoly really is a stupid thing, what even is the point of installing any other browser if they have to be reskins of safari?

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago