- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
cross-posted from !google@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
Isn’t seeking a monopoly going to be the goal of any large company?
It is, and that’s why antitrust laws are necessary.
And enforcement!
you can only enforce what the courts let you unfortunately.
If you aren’t then why do websites of other tech giants tell me I need chrome or chromium to run them when they work perfectly fine on firefox with a chrome user agent?
That’s not on Google though, that’s on the makers of those websites for not wanting to test and support other browsers. Still shitty behaviour, but not googles shitty behaviour.
You can’t tell me Google had nothing to do with Apple trying to force me onto chrome. It says chrome, why not Safari?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. But seeing as Apple won’t even allow other rendering engines on iphones, I doubt Google is bullying them into anything.
Go to https://business.apple.com on Firefox without a modified user agent string and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
That site won’t load using Chrome on my Android device.
If you have proof that Google paid (or otherwise used a monopoly position) Apple to ensure that site doesn’t work on Chrome for Android I’d like to see it
This is what you get accessing ABM on Firefox
I said they claim the site is unsupported on Firefox, yet it functions completely fine. That is what I said. Nothing about it not working on Chrome. Please read my comments thoroughly before you reply.
If we’re going to play the snark game, please read my comments completely before replying.
A site being unsupported by Firefox just means it’s a shitty site. If it did support Firefox, but not Opera, would you make claims that Mozilla paid Apple to block Opera?
Additionally supported and functional are two completely different things. Have you tested every single part of the website in Firefox? What about new versions of the site? Did you test them in Firefox?
Additionally, what even is business.apple.com? I can access apple.com from Firefox to buy a phone or iPad. I can access apple.com/business to learn all about their business offerings from Firefox. I can access BusinessConnect.apple.com to manage my business from Firefox.
The fact that some random Apple site doesn’t work in Firefox just proves that Apple is shitty/lazy. The fact that it doesn’t work on a mobile device is the real crazy thing.
There are plenty of reasons to be upset with Google, we may even find negative monopolistic behavior as a result of this lawsuit. However the fact that some Apple site doesn’t support Firefox isn’t proof of that.
Like which? I haven’t seen a message like that for 5 years, maybe 10.
We’ll, except maybe shitty corporate sites or applications, but usually those are telling me I need IE 6 or above, FF 1.x or above, etc.
Apple Business Manager is the one I deal with daily that does that
Well they weren’t going to admit it…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed to his position on DC district court by former president Barack Obama, will decide the case - the biggest for the industry in 25 years.
The government’s lawsuit focuses on billions of payments Google has made to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others to be pre-installed as the default online search engine.
The US said Google typically pays more than $10bn a year for that privilege, securing its access to a steady gush of user data that helped maintain its hold on the market.
But by 2005, worried about its lead eroding, Google proposed to pay the company - later threatening to cancel payments if other firms got similar access, the government said.
Google said it faced intense competition, not just from general search engine firms, such as Microsoft’s Bing, but more specialised sites and apps that people use to find restaurants, airline flights and more.
“There are lots of ways users access the web, other than through default search engines, and people use them all the time,” the company’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said.
The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
