6 ms·

I confess I often shoplift on GitHub too. I grew up a hardened criminal, stealing server resources from SourceForge and it could only end one way. On a more se

by harles 6y ago

I confess I often shoplift on GitHub too. I grew up a hardened criminal, stealing server resources from SourceForge and it could only end one way. On a more serious note, this is why Google and Apple need regulation. The fact that they can dictate business modes to others - whether or not they’re within their legal rights - should worry everyone. Edit: Not the author in case there was any confusion.

geswit2x 6y ago
> this is why Google and Apple need regulation - publish for free, and doesn’t allow you put donations links - pay monthly cost for publishing, and be able to put link for donations Choose one
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  I choose: - Advocate for developer friendly policies and work with the dev community to weaken Google and Apple's stronghold over distribution. It's funny to see people defending Google here, unless you work for Google it's not in your interest (as a consumer or developer) to do so.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    Maybe people think it’s “the right thing” even if it’s not in their own interest. Or is that inconceivable?
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      How is it the "right thing" if it helps Google but hurts developers and consumers? It seems quite the opposite.
- coding123 6y ago
  Option 3 - Monopolistic injunction sees that this is an illegal set up and forces both Apple and Google to allow donation links and other options.
- acover 6y ago
  Option 3: Force third party stores with selection of various options at start up. Mirror internet explorer requirements. Google has a monopoly and as such has all the power. How can there be consent when one party can dictate whatever they want.
fastball 6y ago
They're not dictating your business model. They're dictating the rules of distributing on their platform, which they built.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  This is exactly why anti-trust legislation needs to be extended to cover network effect platforms. A permanent ban from GitHub or LinkedIn has a non-negligible effect on career progression.
  - fastball 6y ago
    That actually seems like something that can hypothetically still be solved by the free market. If there are competent employees that are not finding good jobs because they are not on GH/LI, then that is a market opportunity for people to start hiring people who explicitly don't have those things.
    - pydry 6y ago
      This is the same argument that was used to try and clamp down on anti discrimination legislation. The idea being that since it was "economically irrational" to discriminate on the basis of skin color, the "free market" could therefore take care of it, therefore legislation was unnecessary.
    - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
      The free market can remain irrational longer than a person can survive without an economic safety net.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Right, but that is what the safety nets are for.
- 987yghj 6y ago
  > They're not dictating your business model. Actually yes they are because they control approximately 100% of distribution.
Sebb767 6y ago
You're using their service. You are absolutely free to provide your app on F-Droid or your own store and ask for donations all day long. But you're still hosting your app on their service and use their infrastructure for publishing. I agree that some regulation is necessary, especially since these are near monopolies, but at least on Android you're still using expensive infrastructure Google provides to you and your users for free. I don't think its unfair for them to demand to not make money using what they provide for free.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  If they gave you an option to pick app stores on first boot, I would agree with you. The choice between the Google store and F-Droid are presented very differently, and I doubt most users are even aware of there being a choice.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    While I don't agree with the author's point, I do agree very much that it should totally be fine to force Google and Apple to allow multiple stores that are selected by the user. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedence for this solution, as this is pretty much exactly the approach government took when Microsoft demanded IE be the primary/main browser on Windows.
  - techrat 6y ago
    False dilemma. Google does not restrict one from sideloading another app store of choice. One can install FDroid, Humble Bundle, Epic Store, etc... So whether or not one is aware of a choice doesn't mean you can use the hypothetical of "no option to choose on first boot" as a loophole for violating the TOS of a different service.
    - robert_foss 6y ago
      One can if one knows alternative stores exist. What I'd like to see is the solution Microsoft was forced to implement w/r to giving users a choice about browsers.
hokumguru 6y ago
I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The latter is well known for dictating exactly what products and even at which price point is allowed inside their stores. Companies often have to create entirely new versions of their product in order to be sold there.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The number of customers who patronize only Walmart for any given class of goods, and never use Amazon, Target, Costco, Dollar Tree, etc. is negligible. If Walmart won't carry your stuff, you can sell to the same customers through many other stores. The number of customers who patronize only Google Play for mobile apps is a pretty good approximation for the number of Android users. There is no plausible alternative to sell to those customers. Amazon is a serious alternative to Walmart; Aptoide is not a serious alternative to Google Play.
henvic 6y ago
No. First, it's not fair to them. Second, if you create such regulations, do you really know who would benefit from them? It wouldn't be the consumers, but these companies. There's a thing called regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture). Try to introduce such regulation, and what would happen is that the regulations themselves would be even manipulated or even drafted by the big players in the market. Why is that so bad? Because it means the regulations will be harsh to everyone else who tries to join that given market. This happens all the time in other industries. We don't need this in computing, please.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Except we do need it. And without regulation we have network effects and bundling feeding into ever more centralization. Until these companies have resources equivalent to mid sized countries. Regulations can also have thresholds so they don't crush small upstarts, yet do provide necessary controls for larger companies.
- hilios 6y ago
  Regulatory capture can happen, but it is by no means so inevitable or incorrigible that regulation should not be attempted.
indigochill 6y ago
> this is why Google and Apple need regulation No, this is why devs need to read the TOS, realize Google/Apple are not platforms they want to support, and work to create/support platforms that are developer-friendly (e.g. F-Droid/itch.io, as highlighted here). Or they are the platforms they want to support (because, for instance, they're where the people are), in which case they're just trying to both have and eat their cake, like Epic on the Apple store.
- captaincurrie 6y ago
  cough Parlor
- coding123 6y ago
  Do people simply not understand anti-trust anymore?

by harles 6y ago

geswit2x 6y ago

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation - publish for free, and doesn’t allow you put donations links - pay monthly cost for publishing, and be able to put link for donations Choose one

solosoyokaze 6y ago
I choose: - Advocate for developer friendly policies and work with the dev community to weaken Google and Apple's stronghold over distribution. It's funny to see people defending Google here, unless you work for Google it's not in your interest (as a consumer or developer) to do so.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Maybe people think it’s “the right thing” even if it’s not in their own interest. Or is that inconceivable?
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    How is it the "right thing" if it helps Google but hurts developers and consumers? It seems quite the opposite.
coding123 6y ago
Option 3 - Monopolistic injunction sees that this is an illegal set up and forces both Apple and Google to allow donation links and other options.
acover 6y ago
Option 3: Force third party stores with selection of various options at start up. Mirror internet explorer requirements. Google has a monopoly and as such has all the power. How can there be consent when one party can dictate whatever they want.

fastball 6y ago

They're not dictating your business model. They're dictating the rules of distributing on their platform, which they built.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
This is exactly why anti-trust legislation needs to be extended to cover network effect platforms. A permanent ban from GitHub or LinkedIn has a non-negligible effect on career progression.
- fastball 6y ago
  That actually seems like something that can hypothetically still be solved by the free market. If there are competent employees that are not finding good jobs because they are not on GH/LI, then that is a market opportunity for people to start hiring people who explicitly don't have those things.
  - pydry 6y ago
    This is the same argument that was used to try and clamp down on anti discrimination legislation. The idea being that since it was "economically irrational" to discriminate on the basis of skin color, the "free market" could therefore take care of it, therefore legislation was unnecessary.
  - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
    The free market can remain irrational longer than a person can survive without an economic safety net.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Right, but that is what the safety nets are for.
987yghj 6y ago
> They're not dictating your business model. Actually yes they are because they control approximately 100% of distribution.

Sebb767 6y ago

You're using their service. You are absolutely free to provide your app on F-Droid or your own store and ask for donations all day long. But you're still hosting your app on their service and use their infrastructure for publishing. I agree that some regulation is necessary, especially since these are near monopolies, but at least on Android you're still using expensive infrastructure Google provides to you and your users for free. I don't think its unfair for them to demand to not make money using what they provide for free.

robert_foss 6y ago
If they gave you an option to pick app stores on first boot, I would agree with you. The choice between the Google store and F-Droid are presented very differently, and I doubt most users are even aware of there being a choice.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  While I don't agree with the author's point, I do agree very much that it should totally be fine to force Google and Apple to allow multiple stores that are selected by the user. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedence for this solution, as this is pretty much exactly the approach government took when Microsoft demanded IE be the primary/main browser on Windows.
- techrat 6y ago
  False dilemma. Google does not restrict one from sideloading another app store of choice. One can install FDroid, Humble Bundle, Epic Store, etc... So whether or not one is aware of a choice doesn't mean you can use the hypothetical of "no option to choose on first boot" as a loophole for violating the TOS of a different service.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    One can if one knows alternative stores exist. What I'd like to see is the solution Microsoft was forced to implement w/r to giving users a choice about browsers.

hokumguru 6y ago

I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The latter is well known for dictating exactly what products and even at which price point is allowed inside their stores. Companies often have to create entirely new versions of their product in order to be sold there.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The number of customers who patronize only Walmart for any given class of goods, and never use Amazon, Target, Costco, Dollar Tree, etc. is negligible. If Walmart won't carry your stuff, you can sell to the same customers through many other stores. The number of customers who patronize only Google Play for mobile apps is a pretty good approximation for the number of Android users. There is no plausible alternative to sell to those customers. Amazon is a serious alternative to Walmart; Aptoide is not a serious alternative to Google Play.

henvic 6y ago

No. First, it's not fair to them. Second, if you create such regulations, do you really know who would benefit from them? It wouldn't be the consumers, but these companies. There's a thing called regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture). Try to introduce such regulation, and what would happen is that the regulations themselves would be even manipulated or even drafted by the big players in the market. Why is that so bad? Because it means the regulations will be harsh to everyone else who tries to join that given market. This happens all the time in other industries. We don't need this in computing, please.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Except we do need it. And without regulation we have network effects and bundling feeding into ever more centralization. Until these companies have resources equivalent to mid sized countries. Regulations can also have thresholds so they don't crush small upstarts, yet do provide necessary controls for larger companies.
hilios 6y ago
Regulatory capture can happen, but it is by no means so inevitable or incorrigible that regulation should not be attempted.

indigochill 6y ago

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation No, this is why devs need to read the TOS, realize Google/Apple are not platforms they want to support, and work to create/support platforms that are developer-friendly (e.g. F-Droid/itch.io, as highlighted here). Or they are the platforms they want to support (because, for instance, they're where the people are), in which case they're just trying to both have and eat their cake, like Epic on the Apple store.

captaincurrie 6y ago
cough Parlor
coding123 6y ago
Do people simply not understand anti-trust anymore?