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”?
darganon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 months ago
bassomitron@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I like that analogy a lot, but I’m not sure if it’s really apples-to-Apples 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 shouldn’t be forced to process all orders through said store.
nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 5 months ago
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.
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oh gee, a duopoly, I guess we have no pro legs then!
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
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.
trebuchet@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
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.”
darganon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but I suspect the fact that Android exists makes iPhone not a monopoly.
AT&T owned the phone lines and the equipment, leading to that problem. So if Apple went and bought all of the cell service providers and said “You’re only allowed to use iPhones” that would be similar, and they would probably cease to exist relatively quickly.
harry_balzac@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 months ago
It’s the customers phone, the customer’s rules. The customer paid. Epic* doesn’t have to. The customers aren’t products.
Ross_audio@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“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 the price. If you pay for something you should not be exploited further as a resource.