'Fortnite' developer Epic has pushed back on Google’s control of the Android app store. The courtroom showdown could force the search giant to offer users more apps, at more affordable prices.
For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.
I’m not the world’s most elite hacker, but I know a thing or two and it took me a long time to get F-Droid going on my Android and even longer to figure out how to side load apps and where to get the files for side loading.
It can be done but I’d guess 99% of people out there have never and will never do these 2 things.
Android makes you double confirm every installation on F-Droid. If you want to install something you have to tap to download, then tap again to actually install the software. Updating apps is incredibly annoying.
The google store doesn’t do this. They allow sideloading, but they do a lot to discourage it.
Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.
The only people who make that argument know better, but will lick googles boots anyway to own the Libs without any consideration for how it will impact them. They are more than happy to make disingenuous arguments in service of that goal.
Well, I agree with you. It was a little on the nose/salty, but I’m not sure how your response isn’t equally predictable and unnecessary.
That being said, I have encountered this plenty of times. Any time adblockers come up for instance, despite the tech literacy/relatively large number of engineers on this platform, you always see people rushing to the defense of poor little Google/YouTube calling everybody entitled.
Google is functionally a monopoly and the vast majority of people who argue that it isn’t have pretty predictable politics/are just grinding their axe over people they disagree with politically. That would probably be a better way of putting it.
Honestly, what I’d prefer to see is Google, Amazon, and Facebook get a proper monopoly breakup.
Separate the Google advertising/analytics/search, media, and phone business units.
For Amazon, splitting up web-services vs online shopping would be a good start.
Facebook’s social media and marketing analytics have always been a toxic combo for consumers.
Oh, and while we’re as at, WTF thought it was a good idea to let Disney but to all the media production companies while also getting a stranglehold on media distribution?
For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.
Well that’s an easy one then, if that’s true.
Especially for Apple phones, damn.
Yeah it’s pretty obnoxious how much control the app stores have.
It does make device security easier, but
I’m not the world’s most elite hacker, but I know a thing or two and it took me a long time to get F-Droid going on my Android and even longer to figure out how to side load apps and where to get the files for side loading.
It can be done but I’d guess 99% of people out there have never and will never do these 2 things.
Android makes you double confirm every installation on F-Droid. If you want to install something you have to tap to download, then tap again to actually install the software. Updating apps is incredibly annoying.
The google store doesn’t do this. They allow sideloading, but they do a lot to discourage it.
Is it possible that alternatives are not widely used because most people don’t want to use alternatives in the first place?
Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.
The only people who make that argument know better, but will lick googles boots anyway to own the Libs without any consideration for how it will impact them. They are more than happy to make disingenuous arguments in service of that goal.
Wanna throw some more “angry old man on the Internet” buzzwords in there? I think you missed a few
Well, I agree with you. It was a little on the nose/salty, but I’m not sure how your response isn’t equally predictable and unnecessary.
That being said, I have encountered this plenty of times. Any time adblockers come up for instance, despite the tech literacy/relatively large number of engineers on this platform, you always see people rushing to the defense of poor little Google/YouTube calling everybody entitled.
Google is functionally a monopoly and the vast majority of people who argue that it isn’t have pretty predictable politics/are just grinding their axe over people they disagree with politically. That would probably be a better way of putting it.
Honestly, what I’d prefer to see is Google, Amazon, and Facebook get a proper monopoly breakup.
Separate the Google advertising/analytics/search, media, and phone business units.
For Amazon, splitting up web-services vs online shopping would be a good start.
Facebook’s social media and marketing analytics have always been a toxic combo for consumers.
Oh, and while we’re as at, WTF thought it was a good idea to let Disney but to all the media production companies while also getting a stranglehold on media distribution?
They’re not mutually exclusive so no need for preference! I’d love to see some monopoly breakups and Linux get wider adoption haha