3 ms·
Except that you are forced to use Google's services if you want to reach any audience on android (and Apple for iOS). I would be sympathetic to Google if the P
by worble 6y ago
Except that you are forced to use Google's services if you want to reach any audience on android (and Apple for iOS).
I would be sympathetic to Google if the Play Store was just one realistic choice of many, or if like FDroid it allowed you to create and use other sources of packages, but at the moment it's like saying "You can't use Chrome to visit a donation page without also giving Google a cut, you're using THEIR service after all to do so."
- adkadskhj 6y agoI think it would be more like "You can't use Free App Engine and infra without giving Google a cut". Now if you can't access the app at all, such as by browser or etc, then i think there's a better parallel to Chrome. But when you're using someone elses infra entirely it feels odd to say you have the right to use it for free. The donations aren't the problem in my mind. Installing applications outside of the app store is the problem. Because locking app installs down and not supporting alternatives like PWAs is the real devil. I still partially think we should just avoid Google phones period, but other comments suggest Microsoft already was forced to allow alternate browser installs, so there in i think that sets a precedent to require Google/etc to better support 3rd party app installs (out of store).