I was looking for an explanation of why apple and google received such a difference in outcomes.
1. Apple had to post a link that said Epic's product could be purchased at elsewhere
2. Google has to do a lot more. Like actual anti-trust punishment things
IMHO, these two should be both punished because the duopoly is pretty self-evident.
From what i could grep (and it's dumb): The problem lies in the structures of both monopolists. Apple has never ever let any one else make smartphones, and it's walled garden is completed, so the court can't compel it to open up and let others (like epic) play. So a link is all they have to do. Android smartphones do allow other app stores, but Google makes it hard to install them, highly discourage them, and google pays developers to not release on other app stores. So google has an "open" market but behaves like a monopoly. So the judge is trying to "level" the market and punish google for acting like a monopolist.
I think apple should get the same treatment, but how?
Time to buckle up for more of this [0] awesomeness, now coming to a Play store near you. Problems created by tech illiterate elders, for tech illiterate elders.
The worse part of it are the OEMs, like they have been doing since the days of CP/M, MS-DOS, 8 and 16 bit home computers, and UNIX OEMs offerings, having those products pre-installed for "added value".
At least back then they were additional tapes, floppies, CDs, DVDs, that we could ignore they were ever part of the bundle.
Back then they had the important property, which is what is at issue above, of having known provenance. We knew whence we got them.
The relevant thing here isn't the naff quality of the supposed utilities, but the fact that there's such a plethora of that kind of stuff for malwares to masquerade as. The better analogy to the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s would be that people were impersonating legitimate sharewares back then, even getting onto cover-discs, just as they impersonate legitimate "store apps" now.
The point being (badly and prejudicially) made it seems is that the next step is impersonating legitimate "app stores".
At which point, cue "app store" analogues of all of the Linux-based operating system people and the well-trodden perennial arguments over "contrib" and "UR" and suchlike package repositories, from I'm-safe-I'll-only-use-the-official-app-store to why-should-I-trust-any-store-above-the-original-author.
I am not against google but apple should get the same treatment.
I was looking for an explanation of why apple and google received such a difference in outcomes.
1. Apple had to post a link that said Epic's product could be purchased at elsewhere 2. Google has to do a lot more. Like actual anti-trust punishment things
IMHO, these two should be both punished because the duopoly is pretty self-evident.
From what i could grep (and it's dumb): The problem lies in the structures of both monopolists. Apple has never ever let any one else make smartphones, and it's walled garden is completed, so the court can't compel it to open up and let others (like epic) play. So a link is all they have to do. Android smartphones do allow other app stores, but Google makes it hard to install them, highly discourage them, and google pays developers to not release on other app stores. So google has an "open" market but behaves like a monopoly. So the judge is trying to "level" the market and punish google for acting like a monopolist.
I think apple should get the same treatment, but how?
Time to buckle up for more of this [0] awesomeness, now coming to a Play store near you. Problems created by tech illiterate elders, for tech illiterate elders.
[0] https://securelist.com/open-source-package-for-cursor-ai-tur...
Don't worry, the Play Store is already filled with must-have apps like "Phone Cleaner - AI Cleaner" and "Ora Battery, Cleaner Antivirus".
The worse part of it are the OEMs, like they have been doing since the days of CP/M, MS-DOS, 8 and 16 bit home computers, and UNIX OEMs offerings, having those products pre-installed for "added value".
At least back then they were additional tapes, floppies, CDs, DVDs, that we could ignore they were ever part of the bundle.
Back then they had the important property, which is what is at issue above, of having known provenance. We knew whence we got them.
The relevant thing here isn't the naff quality of the supposed utilities, but the fact that there's such a plethora of that kind of stuff for malwares to masquerade as. The better analogy to the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s would be that people were impersonating legitimate sharewares back then, even getting onto cover-discs, just as they impersonate legitimate "store apps" now.
The point being (badly and prejudicially) made it seems is that the next step is impersonating legitimate "app stores".
At which point, cue "app store" analogues of all of the Linux-based operating system people and the well-trodden perennial arguments over "contrib" and "UR" and suchlike package repositories, from I'm-safe-I'll-only-use-the-official-app-store to why-should-I-trust-any-store-above-the-original-author.
You really didn't know, as they were full of shareware and public domain, coming from who knows where.
Tech illiterate elders do AI development for cryptocrrency with syntax highlighting of a curly-braces-style language in Visual Studio Code?
It makes one wonder what dizzy technological heights the literate ones reach.
* https://jdebp.uk/FGA/grandma-stereotype.html