20 ms·

This also makes me feel even more strongly that the FTC should really clamp down on these very strict app stores. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/am

by cbanek 7y ago

This also makes me feel even more strongly that the FTC should really clamp down on these very strict app stores. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/apple-inc-v-robert-pepper-et-al/17-204_apple_v_pepper_ac_pet.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/app... Both the App Store and Google Play stores I think are basically illegal monopolies. I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. Both the mandatory fees, and the review policy are terrible. Both Apple and Google could just as easily "recommend" an app as "safe and following best practices" rather than banning them from the app store. And still, many apps get through the nonsense, which has been real joy for scammers and possibly illegal money laundering: https://medium.com/@johnnylin/how-to-make-80-000-per-month-on-the-apple-app-store-bdb943862e88 https://medium.com/@johnnylin/how-to-make-80-000-per-month-o... I get that they want to protect their brand, but really, I think that horse is out of the barn.

javert 7y ago
Not this again. (pardon my sarcasm, no intent to offend.) There was a point in time when Microsoft was deeply embedding its really shitty and uber insecure Internet Explorer into Windows and causing all sorts of very severe problems problems. If that had continued, the world would have switched to free software. It was inevitable. But the government stepped in and forced Microsoft to make a just marginally better product, and thus free software never really had its day. If you want to have an open app store, just wait until Google and Apple become unbearable and people naturally start switching to a more open/free alternative. If you get the government to force Google and Apple to make better software, they will still have a duopoly in 10 or 20 years. Software companies making shitty stuff, left alone, will die naturally. Capitalism is creative destruction, and all that.
- cbanek 7y ago
  It's true that Google, Apple, and Facebook are now getting the treatment that Microsoft got a long time ago. But I'm not sure I agree that everyone would go free software if it didn't happen. If anything, I think another company would just come along and build something slightly less crappy but no more open. These days you don't even own the software anymore, it's just a subscription or SaaS. > Software companies making shitty stuff, left alone, will die naturally. You could say the same of many industries, and I don't think it's any more correct for software than it is for cars, phone providers, banks, or any number of hated industries. People make shitty stuff all the time, and it sells.
  - javert 7y ago
    In the U.S., phone providers are protected by the government. You can't compete with them. The government has basically granted them fiefs. I feel like cars are great. I don't know where the complaint is there. There is an enormous amount of variety in cars. It's really amazing. Definitely a triumph of capitalism. I also don't really have a problem with banks. There seems to be plenty of options. People mostly just complain about Wells Fargo. It's easy to switch. Every truly hated industry is shitty because they are a government fief and nobody can compete with them. In other words, regulatory capture/regulatory ownership. Besides phone providers, the one that comes to mind for me in the U.S. is healthcare. Also, TV providers (AT&T/Comcast)---absolutely government fiefdoms. You can't legally compete with them. If you find an unregulated industry, people don't buy shit. There is competition and people buy good stuff. Clothing, for instance. And almost all consumer goods. Think about all the amazing gadgets and appliances that are available. Computer hardware (e.g. laptops, desktops).
    - cbanek 7y ago
      I think the car industry is a racket because they frequently have lots of recalls that affect safety, but they often don't admit it freely. (like the Takata airbag incident) Same for requiring car dealerships, and negotiated pricing. Getting a car serviced for a recall then having to wait for months, possibly while not being able to drive your car can be a real problem. Utilities like cable / internet aren't really protected by the government, in that there is supposed to be competition, but the companies rarely want to compete, so they tend to service different areas. A lot of banks do a lot of the shady tactics that Wells Fargo does, like ordering deposits and withdrawals just to make sure you get hit with the maximum amount of overdraft fees. I totally agree with you on healthcare. That is one of the biggest rackets in the US where price fixing is rampant, and price discovery is purposefully non-existent. Oh, and just to throw one more in, the airlines! > Every truly hated industry is shitty because they are a government fief and nobody can compete with them. If you're a monopoly and the government doesn't step in, they are basically granting you a fief over that area.
      - javert 7y ago
- augstein 7y ago
  I‘m not so sure about this. Is there any indication or prior example from business history for that claim? The Apple App Store seems good enough for most normal people. They will even defend having no alternative means of installing software on their iPhones with „Security“.
  - ubermonkey 7y ago
    I'm highly technical -- 30 years in dev -- and I prefer the curated, controlled environment of iOS for my phone because I have zero interest in sysadmining my telephone. You put scare quotes around security, but Apple's approach really does result in a more stable and secure platform.
    - edoo 7y ago
      You are cherry picking. It might be more secure from drive by hackers but if any of Apples partners (NSA etc) want in you are carrying a big backdoor that by definition is devoid of security.
      - ubermonkey 7y ago
        That's an "if", while Android is literally sponsored by a company that makes money on consumer surveillance, and apparently has a vibrant malware culture, so who's cherry picking again?
        edoo 7y ago
        I'm not defending Android. I'm just pointing out the platform you consider more stable and secure is likely only so if you are concerned with certain threat vectors more than others.
        ubermonkey 7y ago
        The threat vector you ascribe to Apple here exists for Google and Android as well, though, so it's not really an advantage of Android's model over Apple's.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- iSnow 7y ago
  >the world would have switched to free software. It was inevitable The world was in no way thinking about switching, that's just a libertarian pipe-dream. As to why: the costs of the MS browser monopoly didn't hit either MS or the user, it accrued at website developers and MS's competitors. They had to jump through burning hoops to make their sites work both in IE and any other browser. In fact, the easiest and cheapest way to develop a site was to go with MS's proprietary tech and essentially lock out Firefox, or any Linux (or Mac) browser. Opportunity costs were minimal as Windows enjoyed a >90% market share. At the time the hammer came down on MS, things had in fact improved a bit due to web 2.0 and other browsers (ie. Firefox) leapfrogging MS. But it is extremely dishonest to claim the ruling somehow prevented OSS to gain market share, that flies right into the face of facts.
  - javert 7y ago
    Let's get one thing straight: My comment was not "extremely dishonest." It's opinionated, sure. It's my judgement of the situation. Second: In my opinion, IE was becoming non-viable for end users for security reasons, and baking it into Windows was making the entire system non-viable. If you can't surf the Internet without contracting multiple virii, it's just not a viable product anymore. Especially for businesses and individuals who have bank accounts, credit cards, etc.
aviraldg 7y ago
On Android, you do have the freedom to install whatever app you want without having to root. You can also install alternative app stores.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  You do have to fight through some dark patterns that discourage side-loading. But at least you can do it on Android. Also, it is getting harder to avoid using Google Play Services in your apps since they are putting more Android features behind that iron curtain as well.
  - archi42 7y ago
    There are multiple problems here: 1. As you stated, Google forces devs to rely on presence of the Google Play Services 2. Devs don't care: I don't see why e.g. Discord should not run properly on MicroG (I get push messages after logging in, but the app itself shows all friends as offline, no servers and a "can not connect to discord" message; from what I found online, it doesn't seem to be intermittent). 3. I wouldn't even know which 3rd party app store to use (okay, besides F-Droid for FOSS and some Google Play Store Proxy)
    - panpanna 7y ago
      > 1. As you stated, Google forces devs to rely on presence of the Google Play Services Not forcing per se. Google just provides a convenient services that devs are happy to use.
      - Macha 7y ago
        That time has passed. There's functionality on Android that can only be reliably provided through play services these days (push notifications being the big one).
        panpanna 7y ago
        You are correct, but how many applications need push notifications?
Macha 7y ago
At least for Google, "safe and following best practices" is really a stronger guarantee than they offer of being in the play store. "has paid us $25 and hasn't yet been caught doing anything sketchy" is it, but I don't think they want to promise safety when they can't deliver.
wil421 7y ago
Long time iOS user and I don’t want to open the App Store. If you look at something like the Nintendo Switch’s eShop, you can get download codes from retailers. I believe retailers get some cut from the sale. Maybe apple could open it up in an indirect way. In the video game console world you’ve never been able to install your own games. I can’t do it with my car infotainment system either and they have a crude App Store.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Just because other systems are locked down crap doesn't mean they all need to be like that. The car is probably an exception because close to unbreakable security is.. desirable there.
laingc 7y ago
Personally, as an iOS user, I do not want the App Store opened up at all. Currently, I can go to the App Store, install any app, and be about 99.9% confident that the app will do me (or my technologically illiterate mother) absolutely no harm. This is something I value highly, and am happy to pay the “Apple premium” for.
- oblio 7y ago
  You could just not void the warranty (more or less) for installing apps from other sources. Your mom always uses the App Store, everybody else is happy.
  - ericmay 7y ago
    Which sounds fine until your mom hears about this cool App Store from her friend on Facebook, downloads a bunch of crap, and winds up at the Apple Store with Apple having to fix damage caused to her phone. I’m a little less sympathetic with the repairability stuff, but when it comes to the App Store, daddy Apple is doing a job that I want them to do, and changes here are not to my benefit and would make me less likely to buy the product.
    - cooljacob204 7y ago
      Do they have a computer? Might as well take that away from them with that kind of outlook.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        That's a very viable approach. We got my wife's grandmother an iPad because she kept getting fleeced by Geek Squad after opening email attachments. Smooth running for years now. A lot of people don't have any need for a full-on computer.
        pahool 7y ago
        I feel like my life would be a lot easier if I just got my parents and in-laws using Chromebooks. I don't like sacrificing family members on Google's altar, but the ecosystem really just fits their use cases. I've considered something like Solus-based laptops for them, but I haven't gotten around to testing out a configuration yet.
MichaelMoser123 7y ago
I am not sure if they do regulations like this in our time. With At&t one could argue that this was a regulation that was dealing with a single country; with google & friends one can argue that this is a global thing and that export interests are at stake. of course the law is supposed to deal with objective reality, and that considerations of context are not relevant here; however I am not sure that this is still true when things get tough.
- MichaelMoser123 7y ago
  I wonder if i just got shadowbanned on this discussion, or am i just talking nonsense. Well, never mind...
ubermonkey 7y ago
This suggests you do not understand what "monopoly" means. Apple's iOS model is a feature, not a bug. If you are unhappy with the app rules there, or with Apple being the curator of what's available, then iOS isn't for you.
- amelius 7y ago
  Apple is more like a government regulating a market. Going somewhere else is possible in theory, but in practice not really.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    Apple is a minority of phone sales and market share everywhere in the world. Going somewhere else isn't just possible in practice, but it's the default no matter where you are.
redm 7y ago
"I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it." I like to think of iOS less like a PC, and more like a Nintendo, with a curated ecosystem of software. (Maybe Android can be Sega :P)
- noobermin 7y ago
  Both are bad.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Both the App Store and Google Play stores I think are basically illegal monopolies. I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. Is Google Play doing that now? It used to be that you just had to change an option in settings to "allow third-party software" or something and you could install anything you wanted. It was necessary for the Humble Bundle Android app, among other things. That was years ago, though.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  A developer can install any apk using the adb tool from a command line. Jailbreaking the phone is not required.
  - efreak 7y ago
    ADB/command line is also not required unless you need to do more than simply install an app. You can open an apk directly on an Android device and be prompted to install it (provided you haven't associated apk files to be always opened with an app other than package installer)
yazan94 7y ago
I don't think that Google's monopoly on the android setup is unwarranted. They both developed the OS software and host an app store where they decide what gets sold in this store - the same way that Apple does or Microsoft does on windows with its windows store. > I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I don't know too much about how the Apple/iPhone ecosystem works, but in both Android and in Windows you can generally download apps from locations other than the ones specifically sanctioned by Google/Microsoft without repercussions (android does have the setting you manually have to enable first before downloading external APK's). Google definitely does control an overwhelming share of the app download market, but that's because it has marketed itself well, it works well enough that users don't go looking for other stores, and there haven't been too many alternative stores that have sufficiently marketed themselves to general Android users (F-Droid is a cool concept, but the general Android user is more concerned with "getting an app that does x" than "getting an app that does x and the source code is available")
cpfohl 7y ago
The FTC Is pretty clear[0] on what constitutes anti-competitive behvior, and a monopoly alone is not anti-competitive. Quote from the linked page: "Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." So under their definition of anticompetitive monopoly behavior[1] (which is actually illegal). They call out that behavior with valid business justification (my own example: protecting their brand) is fine, even if it restricts competition. Side note: today I learned a new word! "Duopoly" (a market controlled by two players). Monopoly law _does_ apply to duopolies[1]. * [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... * [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
parliament32 7y ago
> I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I'm not familiar with Apple, but where do you see this problem in Android? "Allow installation of apps from unknown sources" is a one-button toggle in Settings, after which you can download an apk from anywhere you want and install it without issues.
- dmix 7y ago
  This is correct you do not need to jailbreak an android to install 3rd party APKs.
joshdance 7y ago
How would you want them to regulate these app stores? Make it easier for apps to get approved? The reason iOS doesn't deal with as many privacy issues, and malicious apps is because Apple has a strict review process no?
delfinom 7y ago
>Both the App Store and Google Play stores I think are basically illegal monopolies. I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I'm on the fence about it. In the ideal world, yes. In the real world, you get the Windows problem where everyone ends up with 40 toolbars in Internet Explorer and bitch and whine their computer is slow.
GFischer 7y ago
At least for Android, there are alternative app stores, and I´ve used them (especially the Amazon one).

by cbanek 7y ago

javert 7y ago

Not this again. (pardon my sarcasm, no intent to offend.) There was a point in time when Microsoft was deeply embedding its really shitty and uber insecure Internet Explorer into Windows and causing all sorts of very severe problems problems. If that had continued, the world would have switched to free software. It was inevitable. But the government stepped in and forced Microsoft to make a just marginally better product, and thus free software never really had its day. If you want to have an open app store, just wait until Google and Apple become unbearable and people naturally start switching to a more open/free alternative. If you get the government to force Google and Apple to make better software, they will still have a duopoly in 10 or 20 years. Software companies making shitty stuff, left alone, will die naturally. Capitalism is creative destruction, and all that.

cbanek 7y ago
It's true that Google, Apple, and Facebook are now getting the treatment that Microsoft got a long time ago. But I'm not sure I agree that everyone would go free software if it didn't happen. If anything, I think another company would just come along and build something slightly less crappy but no more open. These days you don't even own the software anymore, it's just a subscription or SaaS. > Software companies making shitty stuff, left alone, will die naturally. You could say the same of many industries, and I don't think it's any more correct for software than it is for cars, phone providers, banks, or any number of hated industries. People make shitty stuff all the time, and it sells.
- javert 7y ago
  In the U.S., phone providers are protected by the government. You can't compete with them. The government has basically granted them fiefs. I feel like cars are great. I don't know where the complaint is there. There is an enormous amount of variety in cars. It's really amazing. Definitely a triumph of capitalism. I also don't really have a problem with banks. There seems to be plenty of options. People mostly just complain about Wells Fargo. It's easy to switch. Every truly hated industry is shitty because they are a government fief and nobody can compete with them. In other words, regulatory capture/regulatory ownership. Besides phone providers, the one that comes to mind for me in the U.S. is healthcare. Also, TV providers (AT&T/Comcast)---absolutely government fiefdoms. You can't legally compete with them. If you find an unregulated industry, people don't buy shit. There is competition and people buy good stuff. Clothing, for instance. And almost all consumer goods. Think about all the amazing gadgets and appliances that are available. Computer hardware (e.g. laptops, desktops).
  - cbanek 7y ago
    I think the car industry is a racket because they frequently have lots of recalls that affect safety, but they often don't admit it freely. (like the Takata airbag incident) Same for requiring car dealerships, and negotiated pricing. Getting a car serviced for a recall then having to wait for months, possibly while not being able to drive your car can be a real problem. Utilities like cable / internet aren't really protected by the government, in that there is supposed to be competition, but the companies rarely want to compete, so they tend to service different areas. A lot of banks do a lot of the shady tactics that Wells Fargo does, like ordering deposits and withdrawals just to make sure you get hit with the maximum amount of overdraft fees. I totally agree with you on healthcare. That is one of the biggest rackets in the US where price fixing is rampant, and price discovery is purposefully non-existent. Oh, and just to throw one more in, the airlines! > Every truly hated industry is shitty because they are a government fief and nobody can compete with them. If you're a monopoly and the government doesn't step in, they are basically granting you a fief over that area.
    - javert 7y ago
augstein 7y ago
I‘m not so sure about this. Is there any indication or prior example from business history for that claim? The Apple App Store seems good enough for most normal people. They will even defend having no alternative means of installing software on their iPhones with „Security“.
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  I'm highly technical -- 30 years in dev -- and I prefer the curated, controlled environment of iOS for my phone because I have zero interest in sysadmining my telephone. You put scare quotes around security, but Apple's approach really does result in a more stable and secure platform.
  - edoo 7y ago
    You are cherry picking. It might be more secure from drive by hackers but if any of Apples partners (NSA etc) want in you are carrying a big backdoor that by definition is devoid of security.
    - ubermonkey 7y ago
      That's an "if", while Android is literally sponsored by a company that makes money on consumer surveillance, and apparently has a vibrant malware culture, so who's cherry picking again?
      - edoo 7y ago
        I'm not defending Android. I'm just pointing out the platform you consider more stable and secure is likely only so if you are concerned with certain threat vectors more than others.
        ubermonkey 7y ago
        The threat vector you ascribe to Apple here exists for Google and Android as well, though, so it's not really an advantage of Android's model over Apple's.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
iSnow 7y ago
>the world would have switched to free software. It was inevitable The world was in no way thinking about switching, that's just a libertarian pipe-dream. As to why: the costs of the MS browser monopoly didn't hit either MS or the user, it accrued at website developers and MS's competitors. They had to jump through burning hoops to make their sites work both in IE and any other browser. In fact, the easiest and cheapest way to develop a site was to go with MS's proprietary tech and essentially lock out Firefox, or any Linux (or Mac) browser. Opportunity costs were minimal as Windows enjoyed a >90% market share. At the time the hammer came down on MS, things had in fact improved a bit due to web 2.0 and other browsers (ie. Firefox) leapfrogging MS. But it is extremely dishonest to claim the ruling somehow prevented OSS to gain market share, that flies right into the face of facts.
- javert 7y ago
  Let's get one thing straight: My comment was not "extremely dishonest." It's opinionated, sure. It's my judgement of the situation. Second: In my opinion, IE was becoming non-viable for end users for security reasons, and baking it into Windows was making the entire system non-viable. If you can't surf the Internet without contracting multiple virii, it's just not a viable product anymore. Especially for businesses and individuals who have bank accounts, credit cards, etc.

aviraldg 7y ago

On Android, you do have the freedom to install whatever app you want without having to root. You can also install alternative app stores.

pnw_hazor 7y ago
You do have to fight through some dark patterns that discourage side-loading. But at least you can do it on Android. Also, it is getting harder to avoid using Google Play Services in your apps since they are putting more Android features behind that iron curtain as well.
- archi42 7y ago
  There are multiple problems here: 1. As you stated, Google forces devs to rely on presence of the Google Play Services 2. Devs don't care: I don't see why e.g. Discord should not run properly on MicroG (I get push messages after logging in, but the app itself shows all friends as offline, no servers and a "can not connect to discord" message; from what I found online, it doesn't seem to be intermittent). 3. I wouldn't even know which 3rd party app store to use (okay, besides F-Droid for FOSS and some Google Play Store Proxy)
  - panpanna 7y ago
    > 1. As you stated, Google forces devs to rely on presence of the Google Play Services Not forcing per se. Google just provides a convenient services that devs are happy to use.
    - Macha 7y ago
      That time has passed. There's functionality on Android that can only be reliably provided through play services these days (push notifications being the big one).
      - panpanna 7y ago
        You are correct, but how many applications need push notifications?

Macha 7y ago

At least for Google, "safe and following best practices" is really a stronger guarantee than they offer of being in the play store. "has paid us $25 and hasn't yet been caught doing anything sketchy" is it, but I don't think they want to promise safety when they can't deliver.

wil421 7y ago

Long time iOS user and I don’t want to open the App Store. If you look at something like the Nintendo Switch’s eShop, you can get download codes from retailers. I believe retailers get some cut from the sale. Maybe apple could open it up in an indirect way. In the video game console world you’ve never been able to install your own games. I can’t do it with my car infotainment system either and they have a crude App Store.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Just because other systems are locked down crap doesn't mean they all need to be like that. The car is probably an exception because close to unbreakable security is.. desirable there.

laingc 7y ago

Personally, as an iOS user, I do not want the App Store opened up at all. Currently, I can go to the App Store, install any app, and be about 99.9% confident that the app will do me (or my technologically illiterate mother) absolutely no harm. This is something I value highly, and am happy to pay the “Apple premium” for.

oblio 7y ago
You could just not void the warranty (more or less) for installing apps from other sources. Your mom always uses the App Store, everybody else is happy.
- ericmay 7y ago
  Which sounds fine until your mom hears about this cool App Store from her friend on Facebook, downloads a bunch of crap, and winds up at the Apple Store with Apple having to fix damage caused to her phone. I’m a little less sympathetic with the repairability stuff, but when it comes to the App Store, daddy Apple is doing a job that I want them to do, and changes here are not to my benefit and would make me less likely to buy the product.
  - cooljacob204 7y ago
    Do they have a computer? Might as well take that away from them with that kind of outlook.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      That's a very viable approach. We got my wife's grandmother an iPad because she kept getting fleeced by Geek Squad after opening email attachments. Smooth running for years now. A lot of people don't have any need for a full-on computer.
      - pahool 7y ago
        I feel like my life would be a lot easier if I just got my parents and in-laws using Chromebooks. I don't like sacrificing family members on Google's altar, but the ecosystem really just fits their use cases. I've considered something like Solus-based laptops for them, but I haven't gotten around to testing out a configuration yet.

MichaelMoser123 7y ago

I am not sure if they do regulations like this in our time. With At&t one could argue that this was a regulation that was dealing with a single country; with google & friends one can argue that this is a global thing and that export interests are at stake. of course the law is supposed to deal with objective reality, and that considerations of context are not relevant here; however I am not sure that this is still true when things get tough.

MichaelMoser123 7y ago
I wonder if i just got shadowbanned on this discussion, or am i just talking nonsense. Well, never mind...

ubermonkey 7y ago

This suggests you do not understand what "monopoly" means. Apple's iOS model is a feature, not a bug. If you are unhappy with the app rules there, or with Apple being the curator of what's available, then iOS isn't for you.

amelius 7y ago
Apple is more like a government regulating a market. Going somewhere else is possible in theory, but in practice not really.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Apple is a minority of phone sales and market share everywhere in the world. Going somewhere else isn't just possible in practice, but it's the default no matter where you are.

redm 7y ago

"I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it." I like to think of iOS less like a PC, and more like a Nintendo, with a curated ecosystem of software. (Maybe Android can be Sega :P)

noobermin 7y ago
Both are bad.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

> Both the App Store and Google Play stores I think are basically illegal monopolies. I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. Is Google Play doing that now? It used to be that you just had to change an option in settings to "allow third-party software" or something and you could install anything you wanted. It was necessary for the Humble Bundle Android app, among other things. That was years ago, though.

HillaryBriss 7y ago
A developer can install any apk using the adb tool from a command line. Jailbreaking the phone is not required.
- efreak 7y ago
  ADB/command line is also not required unless you need to do more than simply install an app. You can open an apk directly on an Android device and be prompted to install it (provided you haven't associated apk files to be always opened with an app other than package installer)

yazan94 7y ago

I don't think that Google's monopoly on the android setup is unwarranted. They both developed the OS software and host an app store where they decide what gets sold in this store - the same way that Apple does or Microsoft does on windows with its windows store. > I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I don't know too much about how the Apple/iPhone ecosystem works, but in both Android and in Windows you can generally download apps from locations other than the ones specifically sanctioned by Google/Microsoft without repercussions (android does have the setting you manually have to enable first before downloading external APK's). Google definitely does control an overwhelming share of the app download market, but that's because it has marketed itself well, it works well enough that users don't go looking for other stores, and there haven't been too many alternative stores that have sufficiently marketed themselves to general Android users (F-Droid is a cool concept, but the general Android user is more concerned with "getting an app that does x" than "getting an app that does x and the source code is available")

cpfohl 7y ago

The FTC Is pretty clear[0] on what constitutes anti-competitive behvior, and a monopoly alone is not anti-competitive. Quote from the linked page: "Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." So under their definition of anticompetitive monopoly behavior[1] (which is actually illegal). They call out that behavior with valid business justification (my own example: protecting their brand) is fine, even if it restricts competition. Side note: today I learned a new word! "Duopoly" (a market controlled by two players). Monopoly law _does_ apply to duopolies[1]. * [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... * [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

parliament32 7y ago

> I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I'm not familiar with Apple, but where do you see this problem in Android? "Allow installation of apps from unknown sources" is a one-button toggle in Settings, after which you can download an apk from anywhere you want and install it without issues.

dmix 7y ago
This is correct you do not need to jailbreak an android to install 3rd party APKs.

joshdance 7y ago

How would you want them to regulate these app stores? Make it easier for apps to get approved? The reason iOS doesn't deal with as many privacy issues, and malicious apps is because Apple has a strict review process no?

delfinom 7y ago

>Both the App Store and Google Play stores I think are basically illegal monopolies. I should be able to install whatever app I want, without having to jailbreak my phone and deal with warranty nonsense from the manufacturer. Just like my computer, which I can also install whatever software I want on it. I'm on the fence about it. In the ideal world, yes. In the real world, you get the Windows problem where everyone ends up with 40 toolbars in Internet Explorer and bitch and whine their computer is slow.

GFischer 7y ago

At least for Android, there are alternative app stores, and I´ve used them (especially the Amazon one).