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.
Surely Apple is at least as guilty, if not moreso? I can run graphene and install apps completely free from Google’s ecosystem.
Apple won because it wasn’t a jury trial, Google asked for a jury trial and the jury found them guilty in 3 hours of deliberations.
Removed by mod
While that was their argument, it’s literally false. Just see the different exceptions they have for companies like Spotify and Netflix. They are actually about to lose the antitrust case in EU against Spotify.
Legally, there might arguments that Apple can justify their monopoly, but in a jury trial they would have lost.
Removed by mod
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.