8 ms·

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 hostin

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.
    - Sebb767 6y ago
      That would actually be a really good solution
  - literallycancer 6y ago
    You need root to get the same background update functionality in FDroid though. Otherwise you have to click install for each update.
    - techrat 6y ago
      If you're able to sideload Fdroid, I think clicking to update ranks among the least difficult things you can do.
      - anonymousab 6y ago
        I have found that f-droid click updates are very finicky and unreliable. They eventually work, but failed updates and repeat and phantom update notifications are the norm. It's fine for me but I don't think the average consumer would ever tolerate it.
      - crtasm 6y ago
        Difficulty isn't the issue - for every app that has an update you have to click it, then approve the install. On my phone there's a significant wait inbetween each step. It's a hassle. I wouldn't turn on automatic updates anyway but I'd love to be able to select multiple items and give a single confirmation to update.
  - hobs 6y ago
    And that wasnt a good enough argument for microsoft bundling internet explorer and they got the anti-trust hammer on their asses.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  I hate Google, but.. you bought the phone, did you not? Like, i get that the market sucks for people who care about this stuff, but i avoid Google because their practices bother me. Are their store practices any different then? Should i not simply avoid purchasing their phones (and phones based on their OS) if i dislike it? I think there's a huge difference between, say, residential ISPs where you can not realistically find a better ISP - vs phones. There are _lots_ of phones, many of them without any storefronts at all, problem solved. You're not forced to buy Google phones, so what is the regulation needed here? I'm generally very pro-regulation/government, but this feels so optional that i don't get what the expected outcome is. No more closed ecosystems? Playstation has to allow arbitrary storefronts in their system? edit: Another way to look at this is that the storefront isn't the problem. You're using their infra, they have a right to make you pay. However when they don't allow you to install your own apps outside of their storefront, that is the real problem. Of course you need to pay for hosting, why do you expect it free? But your phone is your own, so you should be able to avoid their hosting entirely, should you choose.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    There are lots of phones, but realistically you're picking between two ecosystems, Android / iOS. My grandmother isn't going to buy a Fairphone. I think Playstations are different from smartphones / ISPs. You can live a normal life without a console, but you really can't without a smartphone or internet access. This technology is no longer optional.
    - adkadskhj 6y ago
      I can agree with that, but i don't see why that has _anything_ to do with Google hosting your code for free. The argument of Google not having the right to dictate terms of their infra seems completely unfounded to me. Why aren't we arguing for a more open Phone? Google demanding money for their own infra is not the issue.
  - Greed 6y ago
    Realistically when you buy a phone you have a choice between two storefronts-- what are these other phones with no storefront you're referring to? Surely you can't be presenting conventional flip phones as an alternative here. Blackberry now produces Android phones and the Windows phone is defunct. That just leaves the myriad of fly-by-night Kickstarter phones that wouldn't be able to run these apps in the first place.
ResearchCode 6y ago
Don't think their infrastructure would cost 30% without their duopoly, e.g. ten non-colluding platforms of equal market share and abiding by interoperability regulations. 5% and no draconian content policy enforcement?
- Sebb767 6y ago
  Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anything. I'm fully on your side with them being near monopolies and them being overly expensive. But there's no arguing that they have expenses and they need to make money.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit. How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps? Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.
    - Sebb767 6y ago
      Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.
      - pydry 6y ago
        >if I rob their shipments and steal their phones This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations? >Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.
cced 6y ago
I’m getting really tired of this simplistic “analysis”. At what point does a monopoly on the distribution infrastructure start harming consumers? Would you accept that your ISP tell you that you need to use their DNS instead of any other? Or their search engine instead of any other? Why do we give Google/Apple the right to decide on donations? They developed the infrastructure? They have benefited from this. Why isn’t this being looked at similar to the patent system where innovators receive the benefits for early days work instead of a long-forever-their-right to dictate how the rest of us work? You can’t even deploy native apps in any official capacity on iOS without Apple taking their cut. Did you know that the IAP for a youtube premium subscription is more expensive than if purchased directly from Google? So, not only is everyone forced to pay more because Apple wants their cut, but they aren’t even allowed to give information as to why this is the case. _Really_ competitive and we’re all benefiting from this type of behaviour, I’m sure. /s I just don’t see “they built the infrastructure so they should benefit” as being the end-all justification for why we should accept this. I guess in support of it: 1. Why build it if they don’t stand to benefit. 2. Building it and having it be the only source of applications (case of Apple) centralizes application source. Better than needing to jump through 3 stores for your apps. But.. against it.. 1. I just want someone to be able to buy me a coffee. Why does Apple need any part of this and why do I need to jump through discretion hoops in the black of night to make it happen? My 2c.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  You're misunderstanding my point. I've already said so in a sister comment, but we're fully on the same side about them being near-monopolies and them being very expensive on what they offer. No discussion there. But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad". We also need to differentiate between Google and Apple here, as the case is totally different. Google simply has a large market share on Android; iOS, on the other hand, has (nearly) no option of alternate stores and the App Store is not free. That's why I mostly talk about Google here; with Apple, it's an entirely different story.
greatgib 6y ago
They can decide to force you to sell at a price an app but it is an abuse of power to have a look inside to be the almighty judge. To the point that here they are even leaving the app space to look at the content of the website. Imagine if you go to IKEA store and they look into your bag to refuse everyone that has an android to accept only iphone users? Just because they can! Or if walmart will check your sms or your facebook profile when you enter to refuse persons that support Trump. And Costco, the same with persons supporting Biden.
jonnycomputer 6y ago
It is a near monopoly. The infrastructure costs are small relative to market power they possess.

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.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    That would actually be a really good solution
- literallycancer 6y ago
  You need root to get the same background update functionality in FDroid though. Otherwise you have to click install for each update.
  - techrat 6y ago
    If you're able to sideload Fdroid, I think clicking to update ranks among the least difficult things you can do.
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      I have found that f-droid click updates are very finicky and unreliable. They eventually work, but failed updates and repeat and phantom update notifications are the norm. It's fine for me but I don't think the average consumer would ever tolerate it.
    - crtasm 6y ago
      Difficulty isn't the issue - for every app that has an update you have to click it, then approve the install. On my phone there's a significant wait inbetween each step. It's a hassle. I wouldn't turn on automatic updates anyway but I'd love to be able to select multiple items and give a single confirmation to update.
- hobs 6y ago
  And that wasnt a good enough argument for microsoft bundling internet explorer and they got the anti-trust hammer on their asses.
adkadskhj 6y ago
I hate Google, but.. you bought the phone, did you not? Like, i get that the market sucks for people who care about this stuff, but i avoid Google because their practices bother me. Are their store practices any different then? Should i not simply avoid purchasing their phones (and phones based on their OS) if i dislike it? I think there's a huge difference between, say, residential ISPs where you can not realistically find a better ISP - vs phones. There are _lots_ of phones, many of them without any storefronts at all, problem solved. You're not forced to buy Google phones, so what is the regulation needed here? I'm generally very pro-regulation/government, but this feels so optional that i don't get what the expected outcome is. No more closed ecosystems? Playstation has to allow arbitrary storefronts in their system? edit: Another way to look at this is that the storefront isn't the problem. You're using their infra, they have a right to make you pay. However when they don't allow you to install your own apps outside of their storefront, that is the real problem. Of course you need to pay for hosting, why do you expect it free? But your phone is your own, so you should be able to avoid their hosting entirely, should you choose.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  There are lots of phones, but realistically you're picking between two ecosystems, Android / iOS. My grandmother isn't going to buy a Fairphone. I think Playstations are different from smartphones / ISPs. You can live a normal life without a console, but you really can't without a smartphone or internet access. This technology is no longer optional.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    I can agree with that, but i don't see why that has _anything_ to do with Google hosting your code for free. The argument of Google not having the right to dictate terms of their infra seems completely unfounded to me. Why aren't we arguing for a more open Phone? Google demanding money for their own infra is not the issue.
- Greed 6y ago
  Realistically when you buy a phone you have a choice between two storefronts-- what are these other phones with no storefront you're referring to? Surely you can't be presenting conventional flip phones as an alternative here. Blackberry now produces Android phones and the Windows phone is defunct. That just leaves the myriad of fly-by-night Kickstarter phones that wouldn't be able to run these apps in the first place.

ResearchCode 6y ago

Don't think their infrastructure would cost 30% without their duopoly, e.g. ten non-colluding platforms of equal market share and abiding by interoperability regulations. 5% and no draconian content policy enforcement?

Sebb767 6y ago
Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anything. I'm fully on your side with them being near monopolies and them being overly expensive. But there's no arguing that they have expenses and they need to make money.
- pydry 6y ago
  Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit. How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps? Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >if I rob their shipments and steal their phones This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations? >Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.

cced 6y ago

I’m getting really tired of this simplistic “analysis”. At what point does a monopoly on the distribution infrastructure start harming consumers? Would you accept that your ISP tell you that you need to use their DNS instead of any other? Or their search engine instead of any other? Why do we give Google/Apple the right to decide on donations? They developed the infrastructure? They have benefited from this. Why isn’t this being looked at similar to the patent system where innovators receive the benefits for early days work instead of a long-forever-their-right to dictate how the rest of us work? You can’t even deploy native apps in any official capacity on iOS without Apple taking their cut. Did you know that the IAP for a youtube premium subscription is more expensive than if purchased directly from Google? So, not only is everyone forced to pay more because Apple wants their cut, but they aren’t even allowed to give information as to why this is the case. _Really_ competitive and we’re all benefiting from this type of behaviour, I’m sure. /s I just don’t see “they built the infrastructure so they should benefit” as being the end-all justification for why we should accept this. I guess in support of it: 1. Why build it if they don’t stand to benefit. 2. Building it and having it be the only source of applications (case of Apple) centralizes application source. Better than needing to jump through 3 stores for your apps. But.. against it.. 1. I just want someone to be able to buy me a coffee. Why does Apple need any part of this and why do I need to jump through discretion hoops in the black of night to make it happen? My 2c.

Sebb767 6y ago
You're misunderstanding my point. I've already said so in a sister comment, but we're fully on the same side about them being near-monopolies and them being very expensive on what they offer. No discussion there. But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad". We also need to differentiate between Google and Apple here, as the case is totally different. Google simply has a large market share on Android; iOS, on the other hand, has (nearly) no option of alternate stores and the App Store is not free. That's why I mostly talk about Google here; with Apple, it's an entirely different story.

greatgib 6y ago

They can decide to force you to sell at a price an app but it is an abuse of power to have a look inside to be the almighty judge. To the point that here they are even leaving the app space to look at the content of the website. Imagine if you go to IKEA store and they look into your bag to refuse everyone that has an android to accept only iphone users? Just because they can! Or if walmart will check your sms or your facebook profile when you enter to refuse persons that support Trump. And Costco, the same with persons supporting Biden.

jonnycomputer 6y ago

It is a near monopoly. The infrastructure costs are small relative to market power they possess.