undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGeekyBear1y ago0 comments

It's the law.

Having a closed platform isn't illegal. Just ask Nintendo.

Anticompetitive behavior is illegal, even when you are anticompetitively competing in a market that you yourself chose to create by creating an open platform. Just ask Microsoft.

If Google's leadership didn't understand that legal restrictions their choice placed upon them, that failure is on Google's leaderhip.

0 comments

lolinder1y ago

Like I said, I get the reasoning, I just think it's a terrible outcome.

> "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."

(Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)

GeekyBearOP1y ago

Nothing forced Google to compete in an anticompetitive manner.

They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.

lolinder1y ago

You know as well as I do that no company will ever do that. The result will be that there will be no new platforms that aren't either fully locked down or built by and for FOSS enthusiasts.

Heck, just look at WordPress for an example of what happens when a company tries to create a purely open platform and then still be a for-profit company. You can have open platforms maintained out of altruism or closed platforms maintained for profit. Android was a middle path that has now been shown to be illegal.

GeekyBearOP1y ago

Creating an open platform is a choice that restricts your allowable actions in the future in exchange for faster growth in the present.

You can still be a for profit company with an open platform without acting in an illegal manner.

You just won't be able to afford as large a hanger for your blimp in as small a number of years.

NotPractical1y ago

Google did not compete in an anticompetitive matter (w.r.t. app stores) and a federal judge determining that they did means nothing because it will likely be appealed by another judge. They will probably win their appeal because the verdict is insane.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lolinder1y ago

Like I said, I get the reasoning, I just think it's a terrible outcome.

(Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)

GeekyBearOP1y ago

Nothing forced Google to compete in an anticompetitive manner.

They (and Microsoft) could have created an open platform and then competed in the market they created withiut resorting to illegal behavior.

lolinder1y ago

You know as well as I do that no company will ever do that. The result will be that there will be no new platforms that aren't either fully locked down or built by and for FOSS enthusiasts.

GeekyBearOP1y ago

Creating an open platform is a choice that restricts your allowable actions in the future in exchange for faster growth in the present.

You can still be a for profit company with an open platform without acting in an illegal manner.

You just won't be able to afford as large a hanger for your blimp in as small a number of years.

NotPractical1y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse