“Google has taken great pains to appear more open than Apple, licensing the Android operating system to third parties like Samsung and allowing users to install apps via other methods than the Play store. Apple does neither. When it comes to exclusivity, Apple has become synonymous with “walled garden” in the public imagination. So why did a jury find that Google held a monopoly but Apple didn’t?”

  • OpenStars@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Although ironically, the OS software itself is free to end users, as are future upgrades.

    Google also sells hardware, e.g. in its Pixel line, and there too the OS software is “free”, as are future upgrades, up to a point.

    Both sell listings in their respective stores.

    These concepts are getting murkier over time.

      • OpenStars@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you’re an OG iPhone or Mac user, then you might remember paid software updates. Over a decade ago, long before iOS 16 and macOS Ventura, major Apple OS updates used to cost users around $10 for iOS and $20 for macOS. By iOS 4, though, Apple switched to free software updates, allowing users to update their devices for as long as they’re supported without having to pay a fee.

        Yeah, but nowadays it’s all “free” - as in you only pay for the hardware to enter their walled garden (but then no matter how much you pay, you can never really leave! at least not via normal, legal means, if you want to ever come back - Welcome to the Hotel California 🎶…!:-P).

        • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Welcome to the Hotel California

          Coincidentally, Apple is headquartered in California…