• BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It’s the same policies on both sides. Google have exceptions for some companies and Apple have exceptions for some companies, I never said it’s only for Spotify or Netflix. And Google favors their 1st party apps same as Apple. It’s literally identical business model, the only difference for now being Google allowing side loading, which soon will be mandatory in the EU.

    So no matter how unhappy that might make you, the logical conclusion for different verdict comes down to jury trial vs. judge trial. And if the win against Google is upheld in the appeals courts, that will create a precedent and then a new party (or same party with different case) can take Apple to court again with this case on their side.

    • snowe@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Google have exceptions for some companies and Apple have exceptions for some companies,

      Google has exceptions for specific companies, while Apple has exceptions for classes of companies. There is entirely a difference, hence the difference in court case outcomes “no matter how unhappy that might make you”.

      So no matter how unhappy that might make you, the logical conclusion for different verdict comes down to jury trial vs. judge trial

      as I point out above, you are completely ignoring the defining factor in the two cases. Classes of apps versus specific apps.

      And if the win against Google is upheld in the appeals courts, that will create a precedent and then a new party (or same party with different case) can take Apple to court again with this case on their side.

      no, it will not, I’m sorry, but you are very wrong about this.