Casey Liss

if you're lucky for you to gain monopoly power and we could argue about, is it a duopoly because Apple and Google are rare, but there's no arguing that there is like a diversity of competition in the mobile phone app marketplace. There's two things, two main things, especially in the U S and the rest of the world. There's more like in China and everything, but like,

That amount of power is found to be by the EU, obviously, and also by US courts to require a different set of rules to apply to you. So it's not like you can't make things integrated or whatever. It's like when you get to a certain size, when the decisions that you make, I think Jason Snell talked about this on Upgrade recently, when you get so big that the things that you decide to do affect...

That amount of power is found to be by the EU, obviously, and also by US courts to require a different set of rules to apply to you. So it's not like you can't make things integrated or whatever. It's like when you get to a certain size, when the decisions that you make, I think Jason Snell talked about this on Upgrade recently, when you get so big that the things that you decide to do affect...

Like the world economy and the competition across an entire industry, that's when different sets of rules apply to you. And it's easy for that to sneak up on you and it's easy for you to stay in the mindset of just like never give an inch, keep everything. And you wake up one day and you're like the biggest company in the world and you and Google control mobile phones almost entirely.

Like the world economy and the competition across an entire industry, that's when different sets of rules apply to you. And it's easy for that to sneak up on you and it's easy for you to stay in the mindset of just like never give an inch, keep everything. And you wake up one day and you're like the biggest company in the world and you and Google control mobile phones almost entirely.

Yeah, and you get these judgments to go against you. And I think the other thing that's interesting about this case is it was a case in the U.S. and there was a jury. And the jury basically bought a lot of the arguments that are in the complaint that the DOJ has filed against Apple.

Yeah, and you get these judgments to go against you. And I think the other thing that's interesting about this case is it was a case in the U.S. and there was a jury. And the jury basically bought a lot of the arguments that are in the complaint that the DOJ has filed against Apple.

Doing these things, if you're found to have monopoly power and you do these things like tying your payment system to the App Store... the jury found that that's a thing that they shouldn't be allowed to do. Well, Apple does that. And, you know, paying people to not go into rival stores or wherever. Apple doesn't do that because they just forbid the rival stores. But it shows that there are U.S.

Doing these things, if you're found to have monopoly power and you do these things like tying your payment system to the App Store... the jury found that that's a thing that they shouldn't be allowed to do. Well, Apple does that. And, you know, paying people to not go into rival stores or wherever. Apple doesn't do that because they just forbid the rival stores. But it shows that there are U.S.

juries that are ready to say that these kinds of practices are not just, oh, that's just the way it is and I accept it, but that apparently the lawyers were able to argue in a way that convinced the jury that, yeah, Google probably shouldn't be allowed to do this. Not that no company should ever be allowed to do this.

juries that are ready to say that these kinds of practices are not just, oh, that's just the way it is and I accept it, but that apparently the lawyers were able to argue in a way that convinced the jury that, yeah, Google probably shouldn't be allowed to do this. Not that no company should ever be allowed to do this.

Not that this is illegal, but that Google specifically, because of the things that they became convinced that Google has illegal monopoly power and so forth, Google shouldn't be allowed to do these things. And a lot of those things are some of the same stuff that Apple does. Again, surrounding circumstances are also different. Cases are different. Juries are going to be different.

Not that this is illegal, but that Google specifically, because of the things that they became convinced that Google has illegal monopoly power and so forth, Google shouldn't be allowed to do these things. And a lot of those things are some of the same stuff that Apple does. Again, surrounding circumstances are also different. Cases are different. Juries are going to be different.

The venue might be different. We'll see how it goes. I don't – this is not a neutral judgment for Apple. I think this is at least a slight negative because it happened in their country and it happened to the company that is the closest to being like Apple even though, again, there are big differences.

The venue might be different. We'll see how it goes. I don't – this is not a neutral judgment for Apple. I think this is at least a slight negative because it happened in their country and it happened to the company that is the closest to being like Apple even though, again, there are big differences.

And it happened with a US jury that found some of the same things that Apple does were illegal if you have monopoly power.

And it happened with a US jury that found some of the same things that Apple does were illegal if you have monopoly power.

It's because they never had an opening for competition. So it was like the illusion of competition making, you know, deals or you can do X, you can do Y, you can do Z. But then like coercing them through other means is found to be worse than just saying, look, there are no relationships with third party stores. We don't allow third party stores. We never have. We never will.

It's because they never had an opening for competition. So it was like the illusion of competition making, you know, deals or you can do X, you can do Y, you can do Z. But then like coercing them through other means is found to be worse than just saying, look, there are no relationships with third party stores. We don't allow third party stores. We never have. We never will.

It's basically like when you buy the iPhone in the before DMA days, when you buy the iPhone, you're not buying it with any expectation that there are third party stores where you bought an Android phone. It's like, oh, Android is open. I can get apps from anywhere. But the Google was essentially disallowing that. I think that was the gist of one of at least one of the arguments.