“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?”
They didn’t. Only one of the cases was by jury, so it’s wrong to claim that “a jury found Google held a monopoly but Apple didn’t”.
And even if they were both jury trials, they’d be different juries, so it’s not like one group of people looked at all the facts and decided Google did the wrong thing and not Apple.
That’s in addition to the different facts in the case which this article is primarily about.
I wouldn’t expect anything more form the guardian. They’ve become pretty clickbait and reactionary lately. Quality has dipped.
deleted by creator
I disagree, The Guardian is objectively one of the best free News outlets out there. Also Op is literally just citing a side sentence out of the article. Which makes me to believe you didnt even read the article. The article make is very clear what the differences are and that the Apple case just didn’t have a jury at all.
You’ve misunderstood what I was commenting on. I am bemoaning the quality in general of the guardian as of late. Not the specific article.
The guardian is a good newspaper, don’t get me wrong, but it was way better back in the day under the previous editor. The quality has absolutely dropped over the past six years or so and any balance to an article is often rendered right at the end under a clickbait headline. These things have changed.
Buy look, that’s my opinion and you surely have yours. That’s fine too 👍.