So why did a jury find that Google held a monopoly but Apple didn’t?
So why did a jury find that Google held a monopoly but Apple didn’t?
The Fortnite maker filed antitrust suits against both tech companies – while one emerged victorious, the other was found at fault on 11 claims
"Google has taken great pains to appear more open than Apple, licensing the Android operating system to third parties like Samsung and allowing users to install apps via other methods than the Play store. Apple does neither. When it comes to exclusivity, Apple has become synonymous with “walled garden” in the public imagination. So why did a jury find that Google held a monopoly but Apple didn’t?"
They didn't.
They determined that Google colluded with others to protect their monopoly and keep competitors out.
Monopolies by themselves aren't illegal.
“The big difference between Apple and Google is Apple didn’t write anything down,” Sweeney said
Tim Sweeney can go fuck himself
Hahaha, nice. Well stated. Succinct.
So basically Google treated certain folks differently than others and Apple said “Fuck off” to everyone? Is that the gist?
Basically.
They didn't. Only one of the cases was by jury, so it's wrong to claim that "a jury found Google held a monopoly but Apple didn't".
And even if they were both jury trials, they'd be different juries, so it's not like one group of people looked at all the facts and decided Google did the wrong thing and not Apple.
That's in addition to the different facts in the case which this article is primarily about.
I wouldn't expect anything more form the guardian. They've become pretty clickbait and reactionary lately. Quality has dipped.
I disagree, The Guardian is objectively one of the best free News outlets out there. Also Op is literally just citing a side sentence out of the article. Which makes me to believe you didnt even read the article. The article make is very clear what the differences are and that the Apple case just didn't have a jury at all.
Google claimed to be open but ran backroom deals to ensure low competition. In doing so it proved its weight in the industry could squash competition, proving its monopoly, which is illegal.
Apple never made claims it was open.
As simple as. Toss in one case was decided by a jury, and the other a judge, and you'll quickly see neither are related.
Basically your question was nonsense from the jump, and pushed by blogs and the like to get idiots to click. Had you read the news, you'd get it. By why read when others will explain it for ya.
Your explanation is right, but the last sentence makes you insufferable
hello fellow lemming,
i'm sharing an article that i thought is interesting, on a related community.
i quoted a paragraph from the article, i am not asking a question.
sharing an article won't even necessarily mean that i agree with it.
only those who care about "clicks" blame others for doing things for clicks. I don't give a damn about clicks.
what the fuck is wrong with you?!
This is a discussion forum. Sometimes an obvious question sparks conversation well beyond the original topic. But someone needs to ask the question first. You don't have to be rude. Just scroll right past.
Apple never made claims it was open.
As simple as.
Sundar Pichai: "All right, fellas, let's comply with the court riling and raise the walls. No more eco system for anyone any longer."
I would like to ask you to please not be so condescending, as it is against Rule 5 here. Thank you.
It's also worth noting that Apple was never proven to not be a monopoly, only that Epic couldn't provide enough evidence to prove that they were. US courts never prove innocence, only guilt.
Google simply could have been worse that Apple at hiding what they were doing, making it easier to find evidence. Or perhaps Epic's prior failure to provide evidence in the Apple case may have helped prepare them with what to look for this time for the Google one.
Edit: Not to mention that the Google case was decided by a jury, whereas the Apple case was decided through a ruling by a judge, which adds another layer of difference between them.
By why read when others will explain it for ya.
Isn't that also what reading the news is???
"The jury, he argued, was essentially allowed to conjure up damning evidence in their minds that may not have existed"
Well yes, that's exactly what the court will do if they find that you've been deleting evidence - they assume that whatever you deleted must have been damning to the case otherwise why would you have told employees to use "delete after 24h" communication channels?
Fuck both of em?