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

  • Aasikki@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn’t seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can’t sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.

      Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.

      I’ve heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?

      I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lawyers are bad, but I’m starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the ‘wrong’ judge assigned to your case and you’re done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.

    • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.