“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?”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    Apple definitely sells the OS. That’s one of the main selling points and part of why their hardware is stupid expensive.

    • OpenStars
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Although ironically, the OS software itself is free to end users, as are future upgrades.

      Google also sells hardware, e.g. in its Pixel line, and there too the OS software is “free”, as are future upgrades, up to a point.

      Both sell listings in their respective stores.

      These concepts are getting murkier over time.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I’d have paid $10 just for copy/paste functionality on early ios, but I don’t remember paying for anything when it came out on iOS 3

        • OpenStars
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          If you’re an OG iPhone or Mac user, then you might remember paid software updates. Over a decade ago, long before iOS 16 and macOS Ventura, major Apple OS updates used to cost users around $10 for iOS and $20 for macOS. By iOS 4, though, Apple switched to free software updates, allowing users to update their devices for as long as they’re supported without having to pay a fee.

          Yeah, but nowadays it’s all “free” - as in you only pay for the hardware to enter their walled garden (but then no matter how much you pay, you can never really leave! at least not via normal, legal means, if you want to ever come back - Welcome to the Hotel California 🎶…!:-P).