this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
351 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
5184 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
What are the hardware requirements?
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.
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?
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.
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...
You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It's why they're so niche and only made by Chinese companies.
It's not in any way a limitation of the OS. It's a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.
And again, your core concept isn't just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that "openness" to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your "partners" using that product, especially when you're also one of them. That's anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being "open" while completely dictating the entire market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And absolutely nothing about allowing users to install whatever software they want without paying extortionate and exorbitant fees to Apple impedes that strength.
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.
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.
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...
LOOOOOOOLOLOL okay so you're not just a fanboy, you're a shill!
Good talk. Bye bye now.