davidw

elijahg said:

pwrmac said:

But an Android! You are not forced by Apple to buy their services or devices.

Well, you don't have much choice once you've bought far enough into the ecosystem. If I was to switch to Android I'd need to re-buy all my apps, bin the HomePods, bin the Airpods, accessories etc in addition to buying the phone itself.

The is very small minded thinking. YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE CHOICE TO SWITCH. Apple can not take that choice away from any of their users. Being difficult to switch IS NOT THE SAME as not having much of a choice. That choice is always there and does not go away just because you don't want to spend the money to switch. Not wanting to spend the money to switch is the choice you made, not  the choice Apple made for you.    

You make it seem as though once an iOS users switch to Android, they have to throw away all their Apple devices. Those devoices still work and can be sold to offset the cost of switching. They can be given away or traded to friends that can use them. Maybe get a free lunch in the exchange. In this respect, it is much easier to switch from iOS to Android, than the other way around because iOS devices hold more of their value and for a lot longer, than Android devices. Plus Android devices are usually cheaper to purchase new.  

Can you take all the games and custom accessories you bought for a Playstation (over the years) and use them on an Xbox?  Does that mean that gamers that are heavily invested in a Playstation, have NO CHOICE but to buy a Playstation, every time they want to upgrade their consoles?  Should they sue Microsoft because they have a "monopoly" on Halo and the only way to play Halo with a game console, is to buy an Xbox?  That's why serious gamers own both. 

You know, the last time I checked, you can use an iPhone and and Android phone on the same family phone plan. My brother family plan includes 2 iPhones and 2 Galaxy phones. It doesn't cost any extra to have both iOS and Android phones on the same plan. What's the problem with using both ecosystems? That's a choice ..... right?

A lot of friends I know have kids playing games on a  game console, that have more invested in games and accessories for their game consoles, the the most iOS users have invested in Apple accessories. You don't hear them crying about how they don't have much choice but to stay with their present game console. Should they sue Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for making it difficult to switch gaming platforms? Why should Microsoft make an Xbox that can play a Playstation game disc or app?       

retrogusto said:

Some of the comments here seem to imply that companies are being punished for exploiting loopholes, but all I see is the identification of a behavior. This conclusion would indicate that perhaps they should refine the laws to more accurately achieve their aim, but before they make changes to a law, they have to indentify potential issues with the existing laws. I think that’s what’s happening here. It’s not whining, and it’s not unfair treatment of anybody. 

The fact that after reading the article, you are saying that these companies (that followed all FTC regulations when acquiring smaller companies), are "exploiting loopholes", is punishing the companies for doing nothing wrong. What made you say that companies following all FTC regulations when acquiring smaller companies, are "exploiting loopholes"? Could it be that the newly appointed head of the FTC put out a report that unfairly implies that?

Or do you already have a bias against big techs, like the newly appointed head of the FTC?    

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/15/1006807299/lina-khan-prominent-big-tech-critic-will-lead-the-ftc

That would be like saying wealthy people that made a lot of money investing in big tech, are "exploiting loopholes" when they only have to pay 20% long term capital gains tax, on that income. 

ScottSisselpud said:

@rob53 ;

"Could you see someone going to a Ford dealer, picking out a truck, then telling the dealer you're not going to use their payment system and pay John Doe around the corner for the truck? They'd laugh you out of the building. This is why the judge made an improper decision."

I don't think this metaphor is quite right. Consider this: Ford saying "you can get your oil changed at a third party service center, but we are collecting 30% of whatever you pay them,,"

That's not even close to a proper analogy. 

Ford does not offer any assistance, equipment or supply the oil, for a third party oil change service. Thus do not deserve to collect a commission.

Here, Apple is operating an App Store, develop and maintain the OS that developers rely on to run their apps, offer assistance in making sure the app runs properly in iOS and spend RD money to attract consumers to use iOS devices. Apple deserve to collect a commission from developers that makes money selling apps on iOS to Apple customers. Otherwise Apple can charge rent, like a shopping mall, where the developer is not guarantee to make a profit, if they don't make enough to pay the rent. 


It's more like this. A third party oil change service wants Ford to supply them with the space, equipment and oil, so they can make money changing the oil for Ford customers, but don't want to pay Ford a commission.  

sflocal said:

I'm a bit mystified by this.  Why don't they allow others to fork Windows then?

I find it odd that a government is forcing a company to make its own product (test, based on open-source) to be modified by others and used in however they want.  

I supposed if they're to do that, then Google should require that it no longer be called Android.  So odd.

It's Google that is allowing the forks of open source Android. No one if forcing Google to do this. Microsoft does not allow anyone to fork Windows. 

The problem is that Google do not allow any device maker to market a device using a fork of open source Android, if they also market a device running the Google license version of Android.  Samsung is not allow to market a phone using a fork of open source Android because they sell phones that uses the Google license version of Android. The license version of Android comes with the Google Play Store installed and support all of Google services. 

LG was going to make the Fire tablet for Amazon, that runs on a custom fork of open source Android, but had to drop out because they were selling phones and tablets  that had the Google license version of Android. They didn't want to risk losing that license by also making a device for Amazon, that was going to use a fork of open source Android. This is what Google is getting in trouble for. 

It's like how Microsoft got in anti-trust  trouble when they prevented PC makers from selling computers with Linux, by threatening to cancel their Windows license. 

Here's a nice but long article detailing how Google controls Android. Both their license version and their open source version. 


https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

leehericks said:

Fragmenting an OS is an awful idea. Google needs to open source because they are built on an os foundation but...the resulting product should be licensable no?

I think if they fork Android, they shouldn't be able to call it Android and no Google services. Seems fair enough. Google should be able to withhold unique and expensive developments from the open source version as well.

Just Samsung and government corruption.

That is the way it is. If a mobile device maker uses a fork of open source Android, they can not call their device an "Android device". Neither can they use that green robot logo when marketing their device. "Android" and that green robot are trademarks of Google and can only be use on devices running Google licensed version of Android.

Devices that runs on an open source Android fork can only be labeled as a device that runs on Android. 

Any fork of open source Android do not come with any of the Google services. Like the Google Play Store, Google map, gmail, Google Photo, gCloud, Google search, etc.. In order for a device maker to install those services, they have to pay Google for a license. Then they can call their device an Android device and use that green robot logo. Plus there is no guarantee that any device running on an open source fork of Android, will run any of the Google services if side loaded. Though many services do work. But no support from the device maker or Google.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

Amazon tablets uses a fork of Android. Amazon do not call their Amazon tablet an Android device. Nor use that green robot logo.And do not come with any Google services installed. But many have side loaded Google Play Store into their Amazon tablet and say that for the most part, it works. But it might have to be side loaded again after Amazon update their Android fork. Much like jailbreaking.