Hacker News Reader

Comment by GeekyBear | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, but when you create an open platform, you are choosing to create a new market where antitrust law will apply.

Google has to live with the consequences of it's decisions.

Open platforms mean more growth more quickly, but they also place restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the future.

View on HN

Antitrust law applies to any company of massive size that engages in anticompetitive conduct, not just companies who create "open platforms" [1], otherwise there would never be any antitrust cases. An antitrust case would be your best hope under current law, but it already happened and the remedies did not include a mandate to keep allowing unrestricted sideloading indefinitely.

Anyway, you're now moving the goalpost, because you were originally talking about a case based on the premise that they engaged in fraudulent marketing, not a case based on the premise that they currently hold a monopoly. The former would never hold up in court, the latter already happened but the remedies were insufficient to stop Developer Verification.

[1] The reason Apple wasn't forced to allow third party app stores as a result of Epic Games v. Apple was not because iOS is a "closed platform"; they simply weren't found to be a monopoly in the "mobile gaming transactions" market (which does not preclude them from eventually being found a monopoly in the "mobile app distribution" market).