|
|
|
|
|
|
by kodebach
119 days ago
|
|
|
It is a non-sensical ruling. But IIRC the reason was basically that while Apple and Google did basically the same shit, only Google kept a written record of their monopolistic behaviour, so only Google was found guilty. However, there is a relevant court case here. The one about Samsung's "Auto Blocker" (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/07/samsung-and-epic-gam...). Epic Games sued because Samsung made it too hard to install apps from "untrusted" sources. This may be a reason why Google is now trying to make the process more difficult on the developer side instead. |
|
|
the Samsung case is very interesting, haven't bumped into that one before.
... as far as I understand the really nasty part of "contemporary" jurisprudence of antitrust enforcement is that the standard is to show that things would be cheaper for the consumers
(though I don't know why developers are not considered consumers of the app marketplace services, after all for them bringing their own payments and whatnot would be much more cost effective... well, anyway, unfortunately the courts are mostly locked to this very inefficient path-dependent way of regulating anything through super expensive arguments, which is an obvious (?) dysfunction of legislation)