• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is actually pretty surprising that the play store is the one getting the antitrust. You’d think Apple would’ve been an easier case.

      • evo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, Apple won on some technicalities.

        1. They don’t have a major market share globally (despite their larger market share in the US).
        2. Epic’s case was focused on games, which don’t make up the majority of revenue for the App Store, apparently
          • evo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            How does this have anything to do with market share anyway?

            Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.

              • bus_factor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.

                  • Knusper@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Well, those measures are not seen as anticompetitive then, because you’re not stiffling competition, you’re rather even aggressively competing with the big players. But yes, a company with a monopoly may not be allowed to perform the exact same action like a company with little market share.

                    The thing is, laws don’t have to be fair. As a society, we want laws to ensure the best outcome for everyone involved. Fairness just happens to generally serve that purpose.

                    But in case of anti-competition laws, it does not. For example, it could even be beneficial to humanity to literally just force any company above 60% market share to pay a big fee. Because ultimately, competition is beneficial to humanity and a monopolist is couteracting that.