Wow sounds very comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered. Sounds like you agree with me that they just made it up? Or are you saying that it's fair to exclude the app store of an open platform which has plenty of "free market" competition from side loaded and 3p distribution apps because ~vibes~?
Not considered? The words "Google Play" are in the judgment 47 times. Maybe you could read it?
By your logic, each of the two companies could use the other as an example and then both get away with breaking competition law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
They have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms"
There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google."
It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered
Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).
Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance.
The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple.
It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy.
I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort.
Consider Google Play, for starters.
Google play has a dominant market position as well and is presumably next for this sort of ruling
The gang learns what an oligopoly is
Wow sounds very comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered. Sounds like you agree with me that they just made it up? Or are you saying that it's fair to exclude the app store of an open platform which has plenty of "free market" competition from side loaded and 3p distribution apps because ~vibes~?
Not considered? The words "Google Play" are in the judgment 47 times. Maybe you could read it?
By your logic, each of the two companies could use the other as an example and then both get away with breaking competition law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered
Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment.
They have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms"
There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google."
It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered
Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).
This is the correct comment to reply to.
Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance.
The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple.
It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy.
I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort.
Adieu.