How exactly does a jury trial work in a case like this? Aren’t juries supposed to be “peers” of the accused? How can a corporation be tried by a jury of its peers?
GPS, mobile network tracking, IP, region the device is sold in (us iphones have a block of plastic where everyone else has a sim card slot), apple store region.
Also VPN, fake apple store region. If detected during download/install also RF-shielding to prevent GPS and mobile network (if download, also needs a wifi signal inside the shield to download at all).
Lot of workarounds for lot of possible detections.
From what i read about it, Apple has a walled garden but charges a flat fee for everyone and has no special deals. Everyone pays the same and they make a little money off of the store but also the hardware sold.
Whereas Google has been caught treating certain parties differently, such as Spotify, something called Project Hug, where they gave extra benefits to parties at risk of leaving the play store, among other unequal dealings.
So the crux of the question is not about the monopoly itself, but the fact that Google is treating market players differently and throwing its weight around to influence the market to its advantage.
That doesn’t answer the question. Sure, in isolation, Android app ecosystem isn’t ideal. But it’s so so much better at allowing competition than the apple one.
Google promised an open market in the form of alternate, competing app stores, but signed contract deals with developers under the table to make them publish through Google Play only. Their monopoly was enforced through contract law, which is lawyers’ bread and butter.
Apple never promised any such open market. Their monopoly was enforced through product design, which boomers and juries can’t wrap their heads around.
Regardless, the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which also ruled in favor of Apple, so it’s possible things will change.
How is Google Play, which is easily circumnavigated with things like F-Droid and APKs, considered a monopoly and the Apple app store isn’t?
The Apple case was decided by a judge and this by a jury, which makes a big difference
How exactly does a jury trial work in a case like this? Aren’t juries supposed to be “peers” of the accused? How can a corporation be tried by a jury of its peers?
In the US, corporations are people
Yeah but who are their peers?
deleted
Going off history, fascist dictators.
Pointing out contradictions is the only way to ever get any shit done.
At least in the EU Apple app store is considered a monopoly, and Apple is expected to allow third party stores during next year.
I’m curious how they manage a function like this differently between EU and the rest of the world.
iOS 18.1 and iOS 18.1-EU?
GPS, mobile network tracking, IP, region the device is sold in (us iphones have a block of plastic where everyone else has a sim card slot), apple store region.
Lot of possibilities
Possible solution are EU exports to the US then.
Also VPN, fake apple store region. If detected during download/install also RF-shielding to prevent GPS and mobile network (if download, also needs a wifi signal inside the shield to download at all).
Lot of workarounds for lot of possible detections.
From what i read about it, Apple has a walled garden but charges a flat fee for everyone and has no special deals. Everyone pays the same and they make a little money off of the store but also the hardware sold.
Whereas Google has been caught treating certain parties differently, such as Spotify, something called Project Hug, where they gave extra benefits to parties at risk of leaving the play store, among other unequal dealings.
So the crux of the question is not about the monopoly itself, but the fact that Google is treating market players differently and throwing its weight around to influence the market to its advantage.
Spotify and Netflix technically have no special deal but bypass the fee and are not kicked. I would argue favoritism is like a special deal.
Basically Android makes deals with big companies, Apple charges flat rate for everyone
Because 90+% of people don’t know what fdroid is and can’t get many of the apps they need there.
Okay but just the existence of APKs and sideloading means options exist. That doesn’t make a monopoly in my mind
deleted
That doesn’t answer the question. Sure, in isolation, Android app ecosystem isn’t ideal. But it’s so so much better at allowing competition than the apple one.
Google promised an open market in the form of alternate, competing app stores, but signed contract deals with developers under the table to make them publish through Google Play only. Their monopoly was enforced through contract law, which is lawyers’ bread and butter.
Apple never promised any such open market. Their monopoly was enforced through product design, which boomers and juries can’t wrap their heads around.
Regardless, the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which also ruled in favor of Apple, so it’s possible things will change.
I assume because no one downloads other app stores
You are off-topic. We are talking about in-app purchases percentage rates