16
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
16 points (80.8% liked)
PC Gaming
8581 readers
781 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In this case, Google did look more shady than Apple because there were reports of Google pushing developer to not publish on other Android's store (which is an illegal anti-competive practice Google operate on some of its platform like Youtube etc.). Apple didn't need to employ such practices because alternative stores on iOS are nearly impossible.
So Google gets hit for trying to establish a monopoly but Apple gets a pass for having one already established?
Some judges need to be removed.
Its Apple, haven't you heard? Their $8m is actually worth more like $16m. Some judges clearly heard.
Judges apply law written by your lawmaker. They are not some sort of kings, you know.
Don't get me wrong, Apple surely is a shit company like many others, but barking at the wrong tree... just help them.
Uh... What? No. One judge said moving towards this type of control is monopolistic, while another said that already having that control isn't. They're applying the same laws, but applied them completely differently. That's on the judge. And most anti-trust laws are federal, so they would be applying the same laws