this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
351 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
4042 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And you were wrong.
People and companies are not compelled to open source their software. Apple doesn't have to open source iOS or offer it on other devices if they don't want to. Same goes for Sony/Xbox/Nintendo.
If I code a game, it's not illegal for me to keep the source code to myself.
No, if Google had done what Apple did, nobody would've flocked to Android in the first place, and we'd have more competition. Do you think there were no phone makers before Android or something?
It's incredible how you still don't get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
Apple. Is. Not. Imposing. Terms. On. Phonemakers.
Google is. Because their dominant market position allows them to.
If Google did this only for their own Pixel line, it would be fine.
I'm not, you just don't like it.
No one is saying they are, but when one does, and the other doesn't, the former hands themselves a shitton of competition. They become more competitive. They created a whole market of competition for themselves. All they've done is put restrictions on how people use their software they've licensed other OEMs to use. Again, not saying these restrictions aren't anti-competitive, but Apple does none of this, so how can Google be called anti-competitive while Apple is not?
We're not discussing "before Android". We're discussing today. If Apple opens their OS to other OEMs, or allows other developers to publish on iOS, I'll take back everything, but they've made it very clear they have zero intention of doing any of those things.
They. Can't. Impose. Terms. For. Things. They. Don't. Allow. To. Exist. In. The. First. Place.
You can't claim one is being anti-competitive for imposing terms on a service they created and open-sourced while the other doesn't even allow for a service to exist to impose them on. That goes for iOS and it goes for alternative app stores.
Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores or alternative hardware because their dominant market position allows them to. A significantly larger market when we're talking about hardware...
It's incredible how you still don't get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
You're clearly unable to comprehend what I'm telling you so let's call it a day. Bye.
It's not abusing your market position to not open source your own software. If I make a game, I don't have to let people have the source code. How don't you understand this?
I've explained many times why Google's options are abusive of their market position and Apple's aren't. You're just unable to understand, it's like talking to a brick wall.