You didn’t even bother to read your own links. The exceptions aren’t for spotify and netflix, they’re for all reader apps, like spotify and netflix. It’s literally the reason they won the case in america.
The second link actually proves what I’m claiming more, they aren’t favoring Spotify or any specific app store company, they are favoring their own apps and have different rules for those on the app store. Neither of which is why google lost. Google is giving specific companies on their app store favorable terms.
Legally, there might arguments that Apple can justify their monopoly, but in a jury trial they would have lost.
you can claim this all you want, but all evidence points to the contrary.
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.
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.
You didn’t even bother to read your own links. The exceptions aren’t for spotify and netflix, they’re for all reader apps, like spotify and netflix. It’s literally the reason they won the case in america. The second link actually proves what I’m claiming more, they aren’t favoring Spotify or any specific app store company, they are favoring their own apps and have different rules for those on the app store. Neither of which is why google lost. Google is giving specific companies on their app store favorable terms.
you can claim this all you want, but all evidence points to the contrary.
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.
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”.
as I point out above, you are completely ignoring the defining factor in the two cases. Classes of apps versus specific apps.
no, it will not, I’m sorry, but you are very wrong about this.