Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.

      Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Apple wouldn’t need to have secret deals. They’re running a walled garden over there. You can’t side load, and you can’t run payments through the app without Apple’s approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn’t a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.

        The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don’t have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not “theirs”, even if they’ve increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by.

        The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don’t approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device)

        But they can’t outright control anything.

        Which is where the deals come in. They’re making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.

        It’s anti-competitive, because to spite Google’s efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn’t.