The Supreme Court has denied both Apple and Fortnite maker Epic Games' request to appeal a lower court's ruling on the alleged anticompetitive nature of
Is it possible to root for both sides to lose in court?
Apple sucks, but it’s their platform, their rules. Android exists, so saying they have a monopoly doesn’t seem right, because they have a monopoly over people that choose to use their products.
Epic wants access to those people, without paying for it.
Ideally neither company would exist, but they’re both not “right” either.
I like that analogy a lot, but I’m not sure if it’s really apples-to-Apple in this context. It’s more like you buy a car and then get add-ons to the car from a third-party vendor that operates out of the manufacturer’s store. I’d say they have a right to ask for a cut on orders placed through that store, but definitely should not be forced to process all orders through said store.
Kinda. They could suspend warranty if you don’t use the vehicle as intended.
And the same should apply to mobile devices: lock me out of your ecosystem, deny updates, suspend warranty, I don’t care but simply let me root, unlock bootloader, sideload, jailbreak and all that nice stuff.
Android allows installation of apps outside of the Play Store. Generally, nothing terribly difficult to do. It’s actually very easy on my Android TV as well as my phone.
I feel like you’re being downvoted unfairly. Your perspective is valid even of some people disagree or misunderstand.
Apple’s customers bought their iPhone knowing alternative stores are not available. That’s where PWA (web apps) can come into the picture. It’s not Apple’s fault developers are choosing to ignore PWAs. Streaming video, streaming games, etc., tons of stuff can be done from a PWA. I am typing this from wefwef (now vger / Voyager, a PWA built for Lemmy.
Apple’s customers bought their iPhone knowing alternative stores are not available.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they’re getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can’t your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? “AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available.”
Apple was in support of PWAs initially and then they decided app store closed ecosystem = $$$$. PWAs are better supported on their shit mobile safari browser nowadays, but they have lacked important functionality and kept bugs in it for years; I have even seen some of these issues mentioned in Voyager’s issues / PRs.
That being said if they had a more open ecosystem and chrome / Firefox with their own engines were allowed on the app store (they are on there but they use Safari’s webkit because it is against app stores TOS, probably because of better PWA support from competition?)
Is it possible to root for both sides to lose in court?
Apple sucks, but it’s their platform, their rules. Android exists, so saying they have a monopoly doesn’t seem right, because they have a monopoly over people that choose to use their products.
Epic wants access to those people, without paying for it.
Ideally neither company would exist, but they’re both not “right” either.
It’s the customers phone, the customer’s rules. The customer paid. Epic* doesn’t have to. The customers aren’t products.
“The customers aren’t products” is genuinely a decent mantra.
If a company makes you the product avoid it or at least know the value they’re getting.
If you get something free, your data and attention is often the price. If you pay for something you should not be exploited further as a resource.
So a car manufacturer can tell you which roads you can use with the car you purchased and own, since it’s “their product, their rules”?
I like that analogy a lot, but I’m not sure if it’s really apples-to-Apple in this context. It’s more like you buy a car and then get add-ons to the car from a third-party vendor that operates out of the manufacturer’s store. I’d say they have a right to ask for a cut on orders placed through that store, but definitely should not be forced to process all orders through said store.
Kinda. They could suspend warranty if you don’t use the vehicle as intended.
And the same should apply to mobile devices: lock me out of your ecosystem, deny updates, suspend warranty, I don’t care but simply let me root, unlock bootloader, sideload, jailbreak and all that nice stuff.
Oh gee, a duopoly, I guess we have no problems then!
Android allows installation of apps outside of the Play Store. Generally, nothing terribly difficult to do. It’s actually very easy on my Android TV as well as my phone.
I feel like you’re being downvoted unfairly. Your perspective is valid even of some people disagree or misunderstand.
Apple’s customers bought their iPhone knowing alternative stores are not available. That’s where PWA (web apps) can come into the picture. It’s not Apple’s fault developers are choosing to ignore PWAs. Streaming video, streaming games, etc., tons of stuff can be done from a PWA. I am typing this from wefwef (now vger / Voyager, a PWA built for Lemmy.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they’re getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can’t your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? “AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available.”
Apple was in support of PWAs initially and then they decided app store closed ecosystem = $$$$. PWAs are better supported on their shit mobile safari browser nowadays, but they have lacked important functionality and kept bugs in it for years; I have even seen some of these issues mentioned in Voyager’s issues / PRs.
That being said if they had a more open ecosystem and chrome / Firefox with their own engines were allowed on the app store (they are on there but they use Safari’s webkit because it is against app stores TOS, probably because of better PWA support from competition?)