4 ms·
I'd say Amazon is different, but Google has a monopoly in mobile operating systems worldwide (certainly in the EU), so I don't think it should be allowed to blo
by mtgx 8y ago
I'd say Amazon is different, but Google has a monopoly in mobile operating systems worldwide (certainly in the EU), so I don't think it should be allowed to block apps that hurt its business. That seems quite anti-competitive to me. Plus, ad-blocking has been deemed legal by at least four courts in Germany, and I believe in the U.S. and Canada, too.
Also you could have used the same "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument with VOIP apps on carrier networks. And yet, most countries have passed laws against ISPs banning competing services on their networks.
- jstandard 8y agoIn general I agree with your sentiment. I do think this is different, in a nuanced way, from the ISP bans though. The ISPs banned them from their platform. Google and Amazon allow these apps on their platform (the Android OS), but are banning them from their app distribution channels. Taking Google's perspective for a moment, they are not willing the facilitate distribution of apps whose sole purpose reduces their revenue. These ad-blocker apps can still be distributed and installed outside the app store. I can download from adguard.com and sideload it onto my device. The interesting question here is if the app stores are considered a functioning monopoly on apps. I lean toward yes.
- Spivak 8y agoSurely you recognize a difference between not allowing certain apps to be installed and refusing to host that app in their store? Although, if the only place you can install software (within reason) is though their store then I think we're in a different situation.