They didn't.
They determined that Google colluded with others to protect their monopoly and keep competitors out.
Monopolies by themselves aren't illegal.
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
213 points (93.8% liked)
Android
27509 readers
202 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
“The big difference between Apple and Google is Apple didn’t write anything down,” Sweeney said
Tim Sweeney can go fuck himself
Many companies have already implemented aggressive email "retention" policies, where only specifically tagged and marked emails can be saved in a system that will periodically require the user to verify if it is still required. All other emails get purged.
This to avoid years old emails surfacing in those nuisance lawsuits and prove the company willingly did illegal things.
Yes, but when a court order to retain documents comes down, the legal department of those companies knows how to do so.
Sure, the legal hold will be implemented so no new emails will be deleted that meet the requirements. But anything already gone is gone, so no getting bit in the ass by 5 year old mails.. is the idea.
Yes, this situation just doesn't fit that bill. They kept the purge in place after the court order, otherwise they'd be fine.
oh, my apologies, I wasn't commenting on this specific case. I was more adding content in general.
The fact that a company actively purges relevant data they where supposed to retain, should automatically lead to the inference that the data was "the most damning possible" and take it from there.
Hahaha, nice. Well stated. Succinct.
So basically Google treated certain folks differently than others and Apple said “Fuck off” to everyone? Is that the gist?
Basically.
They didn't. Only one of the cases was by jury, so it's wrong to claim that "a jury found Google held a monopoly but Apple didn't".
And even if they were both jury trials, they'd be different juries, so it's not like one group of people looked at all the facts and decided Google did the wrong thing and not Apple.
That's in addition to the different facts in the case which this article is primarily about.
I wouldn't expect anything more form the guardian. They've become pretty clickbait and reactionary lately. Quality has dipped.
I disagree, The Guardian is objectively one of the best free News outlets out there. Also Op is literally just citing a side sentence out of the article. Which makes me to believe you didnt even read the article. The article make is very clear what the differences are and that the Apple case just didn't have a jury at all.
You've misunderstood what I was commenting on. I am bemoaning the quality in general of the guardian as of late. Not the specific article.
The guardian is a good newspaper, don't get me wrong, but it was way better back in the day under the previous editor. The quality has absolutely dropped over the past six years or so and any balance to an article is often rendered right at the end under a clickbait headline. These things have changed.
Buy look, that's my opinion and you surely have yours. That's fine too 👍.
"The jury, he argued, was essentially allowed to conjure up damning evidence in their minds that may not have existed"
Well yes, that's exactly what the court will do if they find that you've been deleting evidence - they assume that whatever you deleted must have been damning to the case otherwise why would you have told employees to use "delete after 24h" communication channels?
Yeah right? That’s the long-standing procedure for deliberately destroyed evidence — the fact finder gets to make all reasonable negative inferences.
Google claimed to be open but ran backroom deals to ensure low competition. In doing so it proved its weight in the industry could squash competition, proving its monopoly, which is illegal.
Apple never made claims it was open.
As simple as. Toss in one case was decided by a jury, and the other a judge, and you'll quickly see neither are related.
Basically your question was nonsense from the jump, and pushed by blogs and the like to get idiots to click. Had you read the news, you'd get it. By why read when others will explain it for ya.
Your explanation is right, but the last sentence makes you insufferable
hello fellow lemming,
i'm sharing an article that i thought is interesting, on a related community.
i quoted a paragraph from the article, i am not asking a question.
sharing an article won't even necessarily mean that i agree with it.
only those who care about "clicks" blame others for doing things for clicks. I don't give a damn about clicks.
what the fuck is wrong with you?!
This is a discussion forum. Sometimes an obvious question sparks conversation well beyond the original topic. But someone needs to ask the question first. You don't have to be rude. Just scroll right past.
Apple never made claims it was open.
As simple as.
Sundar Pichai: "All right, fellas, let's comply with the court riling and raise the walls. No more eco system for anyone any longer."
I mean, Google can sure try lol. Pixels make up like 1% of market share. If they cut off Android from everyone else, they would fall completely out in no time.
Sundar Pichai: “Reach out to Samsung. Tell them either we and them enter an exclusive deal for a locked down Android or we all go down together. Kill the Pixel line. Killing our own products is what we do best anyway."
I would like to ask you to please not be so condescending, as it is against Rule 5 here. Thank you.
It's also worth noting that Apple was never proven to not be a monopoly, only that Epic couldn't provide enough evidence to prove that they were. US courts never prove innocence, only guilt.
Google simply could have been worse that Apple at hiding what they were doing, making it easier to find evidence. Or perhaps Epic's prior failure to provide evidence in the Apple case may have helped prepare them with what to look for this time for the Google one.
Edit: Not to mention that the Google case was decided by a jury, whereas the Apple case was decided through a ruling by a judge, which adds another layer of difference between them.
By why read when others will explain it for ya.
Isn't that also what reading the news is???
Fuck both of em?
I also would point out that Google and Apple sells very different things. Apple does not sell iOS. It sells hardware to customers and the right to access users through this hardware to third parties (game makers). Google’s product to begin with is software (Operating System) on multiple phone platforms. Different laws and rules may apply there.
Apple definitely sells the OS. That's one of the main selling points and part of why their hardware is stupid expensive.
Although ironically, the OS software itself is free to end users, as are future upgrades.
Google also sells hardware, e.g. in its Pixel line, and there too the OS software is "free", as are future upgrades, up to a point.
Both sell listings in their respective stores.
These concepts are getting murkier over time.
I recall paying for an iPhoneOS update, Looks like it was iPhoneOS 2 or 3 from the first paragraph. I can't speak for anything else in the article, however.
Yeah, I'd have paid $10 just for copy/paste functionality on early ios, but I don't remember paying for anything when it came out on iOS 3
If you're an OG iPhone or Mac user, then you might remember paid software updates. Over a decade ago, long before iOS 16 and macOS Ventura, major Apple OS updates used to cost users around $10 for iOS and $20 for macOS. By iOS 4, though, Apple switched to free software updates, allowing users to update their devices for as long as they're supported without having to pay a fee.
Yeah, but nowadays it's all "free" - as in you only pay for the hardware to enter their walled garden (but then no matter how much you pay, you can never really leave! at least not via normal, legal means, if you want to ever come back - Welcome to the Hotel California 🎶...!:-P).
Welcome to the Hotel California
Coincidentally, Apple is headquartered in California...
Selling point is not the same as sales.
Android is free tho?
You do not pay, but Google does collect money one way or another. Regardless, it is their product, which is different from iPhone being a product.