7 ms·

Kinda ironic seeing Google Play's post today about "Boosting developer success on Google Play" [0] with quotes like "Helping developers build sustainable busine

Kinda ironic seeing Google Play's post today about "Boosting developer success on Google Play" [0] with quotes like "Helping developers build sustainable businesses", except that your business can be gone at any moment based on the whim of some Google employee or automated algorithm. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737

chii 6y ago
The dangers of building on a platform that is unregulated. You wouldn't build your brick and mortar store on a contract that allowed the landlord to kick you out at a whim without compensation.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  And yet people accept work in "at-will" states. And the reason is the same as in developers build upon Google Play and Apple Store: they don't have another choice to make a living.
  - donatj 6y ago
    Myself, working in an at-will state, it’s quite a different situation. If I lose my job there are thousands of other companies that would be happy to have me. Many of whom are filled with great people who are sane and reasonable. When it comes to selling mobile apps there are two storefronts with unforgiving chaotic management that will drop you at the turn of a hat.
    - fredgrott 6y ago
      you are confusing at-will with having an open enough systems that promote equity for all the equity for all is what guarantees what you have experienced not an at-well work state
      - eplanit 6y ago
        What is equity for all? Everyone getting the exact same outcome? Equality of opportunity makes sense, though.
- skohan 6y ago
  I think this is one of the great unsolved problems of our time. Apple, Google and Amazon (ok and Azure too I guess) are effectively gatekeepers in terms of what products are allowed to exist online. And during the pandemic this is especially relevant, because for a great many people online life is public life for all intents and purposes. I think almost everyone would agree that a handful of unaccountable corporations should not hold this discretionary power, but we don't have a legal framework or social contract to dictate how this should be handled.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Parent pointed out a good starting place: in the physical world, we've evolved minimum property and contractual rights that cannot be waived. In the digital world we have... binding arbitration clauses in terms & conditions of use.
    - silon42 6y ago
      IMO, eventually this will revert, when lawyers (and judges) realize DRM makes many of them redundant.
  - cbradford 6y ago
    There is a framework for this that was created over 100 years ago when the same problem happened with railroads. They did they same thing and used their monopoly power to discriminate on who could ship goods by rail. Society said that was wrong and we have the idea of a common carrier that must treat all customers the same. We should declare all app stores to be the same, common carries that may not discriminate. Bottom line, end of story. No BS about "hate speech" or other terms that are made up to make censorship sound more palatable.
    - oblio 6y ago
      We'll need a legal framework for removing apps in this case.
      - 6y ago
- kauffj 6y ago
  This problem could be fixed with less regulation, not more. Without intellectual property there would be far more diversity and choice.
- bombcar 6y ago
  This can and does happen - but it’s usually limited to a locality (either the landlord or the local government) and you can move outside their jurisdiction relatively easily. It’s rarely a state or federal thing. But here there is only two at the highest level - and nowhere to turn.
- g_p 6y ago
  The EU's upcoming digital services act and digital marketplaces act look to try to actual regulate these platforms. That could get interesting.
MCage 6y ago
My hypothesis is that Google does not care about anything other than its own interest, and simply has to make small steps to get enough PR on their side to prevent further regulation. (Just like the plan for Chrome to eliminate cookies).

chii 6y ago

The dangers of building on a platform that is unregulated. You wouldn't build your brick and mortar store on a contract that allowed the landlord to kick you out at a whim without compensation.

mschuster91 6y ago
And yet people accept work in "at-will" states. And the reason is the same as in developers build upon Google Play and Apple Store: they don't have another choice to make a living.
- donatj 6y ago
  Myself, working in an at-will state, it’s quite a different situation. If I lose my job there are thousands of other companies that would be happy to have me. Many of whom are filled with great people who are sane and reasonable. When it comes to selling mobile apps there are two storefronts with unforgiving chaotic management that will drop you at the turn of a hat.
  - fredgrott 6y ago
    you are confusing at-will with having an open enough systems that promote equity for all the equity for all is what guarantees what you have experienced not an at-well work state
    - eplanit 6y ago
      What is equity for all? Everyone getting the exact same outcome? Equality of opportunity makes sense, though.
skohan 6y ago
I think this is one of the great unsolved problems of our time. Apple, Google and Amazon (ok and Azure too I guess) are effectively gatekeepers in terms of what products are allowed to exist online. And during the pandemic this is especially relevant, because for a great many people online life is public life for all intents and purposes. I think almost everyone would agree that a handful of unaccountable corporations should not hold this discretionary power, but we don't have a legal framework or social contract to dictate how this should be handled.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Parent pointed out a good starting place: in the physical world, we've evolved minimum property and contractual rights that cannot be waived. In the digital world we have... binding arbitration clauses in terms & conditions of use.
  - silon42 6y ago
    IMO, eventually this will revert, when lawyers (and judges) realize DRM makes many of them redundant.
- cbradford 6y ago
  There is a framework for this that was created over 100 years ago when the same problem happened with railroads. They did they same thing and used their monopoly power to discriminate on who could ship goods by rail. Society said that was wrong and we have the idea of a common carrier that must treat all customers the same. We should declare all app stores to be the same, common carries that may not discriminate. Bottom line, end of story. No BS about "hate speech" or other terms that are made up to make censorship sound more palatable.
  - oblio 6y ago
    We'll need a legal framework for removing apps in this case.
    - 6y ago
kauffj 6y ago
This problem could be fixed with less regulation, not more. Without intellectual property there would be far more diversity and choice.
bombcar 6y ago
This can and does happen - but it’s usually limited to a locality (either the landlord or the local government) and you can move outside their jurisdiction relatively easily. It’s rarely a state or federal thing. But here there is only two at the highest level - and nowhere to turn.
g_p 6y ago
The EU's upcoming digital services act and digital marketplaces act look to try to actual regulate these platforms. That could get interesting.

MCage 6y ago

My hypothesis is that Google does not care about anything other than its own interest, and simply has to make small steps to get enough PR on their side to prevent further regulation. (Just like the plan for Chrome to eliminate cookies).