4 ms·

That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Gam

by JackCh 8y ago

That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.

on_and_off 8y ago
True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval. Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring. When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app. We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app. Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition.. I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital. Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition. Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.

by JackCh 8y ago

on_and_off 8y ago

True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval. Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring. When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app. We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app. Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition.. I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital. Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition. Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.