5 ms·

I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform th

I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform through alternative means. However, epic seems to be dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to vacuum money out of children and the flaws with apples model that'd be great. To say that you can just install lineage is disingenuous. I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch so my argument stands against these phone manufacturers as much as they do against Apple. Simply, my perspective is that people are going too hard on apple and not hard enough on Google. They both need to be broken up and forced to allow more programs on the products they sell. Epic is tainting the argument and trying to disingenuously spin their self interests as a benefit for consumers.

saurik 6y ago
If it makes you feel any better, Epic also sued Google; that lawsuit just doesn't get much press, as the narrative surrounding Apple's store is so much easier to attack due to how almost all Android devices technically support sideloading (though as a second-class feature which is actively crippled and discouraged by Google in ways that are maybe anticompetitive).
danShumway 6y ago
Epic is also currently in a lawsuit against Google over Google threatening phone manufactures who include alternative stores alongside Google Play. I'm not sure where the argument is that Android is the ideal; Google does restrict a lot of functionality to the Play store, arguably illegally. They're just comparatively less restrictive than Apple is. > I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch Valid concern, but this is less a Google problem and more a hardware problem. Google isn't doing anything to block LineageOS, it just takes time to support the new hardware. You'll see the same problem with consumer laptops and Linux. This is why we have increasing movement to try and get Open hardware/firmware. Nevertheless, the situation with LineageOS is still comparatively much better than it is on Apple hardware. At least with LineageOS, you don't need to find a jailbreak to get it working. Part of the reason Apple dominates these conversations is because it's the most obvious, clear example of what we're talking about -- not because the situation on Android is ideal or because we wouldn't like the Android situation to be better. Check out the discussions about the Librem 5/Pinephone if you're interested in getting involved in the effort to make hardware compatibility better in general. > epic seems to be dominating the discussion It's not so much that everything revolves around Fortnite, it's just that Epic is currently one of the biggest forces in play surrounding antitrust. It's a bit like how Google and Oracle dominated the conversation around API Copyright -- not because Google was a saintly company, but because they were currently arguing about it in front of a judge, and that's a newsworthy event that might have large effects on the industry. That being said, I'm also a little bit confused about why you're voicing this objection here, because this article doesn't mention Epic at all, and outside the comment thread that you started, I don't really see anywhere else in the comments where anyone has brought Epic up. Fortnite was 1 out of 10 apps that I mentioned in a comment thread that was originally talking about Apple's refusal to allow alternative browsers like Firefox. So while Epic is certainly getting a lot of coverage in general, it's not like nothing else is being talked about. I certainly didn't zero in on Epic in my comment other than to list Fortnite as one of multiple examples of apps some consumers might care about. On the note of "unequal coverage", it's also worth mentioning that the legislative effort being covered in this article is targeting both Apple and Google and would affect both companies equally. So I'm not even sure it's accurate for you to say that Google is getting a free pass legally. The Judiciary Committee is certainly not ignoring Google right now.

saurik 6y ago

If it makes you feel any better, Epic also sued Google; that lawsuit just doesn't get much press, as the narrative surrounding Apple's store is so much easier to attack due to how almost all Android devices technically support sideloading (though as a second-class feature which is actively crippled and discouraged by Google in ways that are maybe anticompetitive).

danShumway 6y ago

Epic is also currently in a lawsuit against Google over Google threatening phone manufactures who include alternative stores alongside Google Play. I'm not sure where the argument is that Android is the ideal; Google does restrict a lot of functionality to the Play store, arguably illegally. They're just comparatively less restrictive than Apple is. > I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch Valid concern, but this is less a Google problem and more a hardware problem. Google isn't doing anything to block LineageOS, it just takes time to support the new hardware. You'll see the same problem with consumer laptops and Linux. This is why we have increasing movement to try and get Open hardware/firmware. Nevertheless, the situation with LineageOS is still comparatively much better than it is on Apple hardware. At least with LineageOS, you don't need to find a jailbreak to get it working. Part of the reason Apple dominates these conversations is because it's the most obvious, clear example of what we're talking about -- not because the situation on Android is ideal or because we wouldn't like the Android situation to be better. Check out the discussions about the Librem 5/Pinephone if you're interested in getting involved in the effort to make hardware compatibility better in general. > epic seems to be dominating the discussion It's not so much that everything revolves around Fortnite, it's just that Epic is currently one of the biggest forces in play surrounding antitrust. It's a bit like how Google and Oracle dominated the conversation around API Copyright -- not because Google was a saintly company, but because they were currently arguing about it in front of a judge, and that's a newsworthy event that might have large effects on the industry. That being said, I'm also a little bit confused about why you're voicing this objection here, because this article doesn't mention Epic at all, and outside the comment thread that you started, I don't really see anywhere else in the comments where anyone has brought Epic up. Fortnite was 1 out of 10 apps that I mentioned in a comment thread that was originally talking about Apple's refusal to allow alternative browsers like Firefox. So while Epic is certainly getting a lot of coverage in general, it's not like nothing else is being talked about. I certainly didn't zero in on Epic in my comment other than to list Fortnite as one of multiple examples of apps some consumers might care about. On the note of "unequal coverage", it's also worth mentioning that the legislative effort being covered in this article is targeting both Apple and Google and would affect both companies equally. So I'm not even sure it's accurate for you to say that Google is getting a free pass legally. The Judiciary Committee is certainly not ignoring Google right now.