3 ms·

> does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical. I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, for now. But they still do bad things, and they

by kentonv 11y ago

> does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical. I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, for now. But they still do bad things, and they could easily get worse in the future. We need to move away from this kind of centralization, so that no one has the power to unilaterally gag legitimate content. > Google Play doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps. Almost every app "interferes" with others in some way. The "no interference" clause seems clearly intended to target interference which was unwanted by the user, but that is not how Google applied it here. If the user expressly intends that the app interfere with other apps, then I think that it is unethical to prohibit them from doing so on their own device. Disconnect is not malware; users install it for exactly the purpose it implements.

Natanael_L 11y ago
Interference here is targeted functional manipulation. Not fifth degree unintended side effects. The user's wish is not considered. There's a reason not a lot Xposed modules are on Google Play. Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and install those apps from elsewhere.
- kentonv 11y ago
  > 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better than Apple (in my opinion). However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill an app. Few users know how to sideload things. In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    And then developers who get their apps handicapped by apps promoted next to them takes their apps down. I understand your reasoning, but Google's focus is the ecosystem. If it was trivial for everybody to disable all adds and in-app purchase functions in all free apps with just a few taps, there'd be far fewer of exactly those apps you want to use. So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave exactly as we want on our devices.

by kentonv 11y ago

Natanael_L 11y ago

Interference here is targeted functional manipulation. Not fifth degree unintended side effects. The user's wish is not considered. There's a reason not a lot Xposed modules are on Google Play. Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and install those apps from elsewhere.

kentonv 11y ago
> 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better than Apple (in my opinion). However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill an app. Few users know how to sideload things. In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  And then developers who get their apps handicapped by apps promoted next to them takes their apps down. I understand your reasoning, but Google's focus is the ecosystem. If it was trivial for everybody to disable all adds and in-app purchase functions in all free apps with just a few taps, there'd be far fewer of exactly those apps you want to use. So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave exactly as we want on our devices.