4 ms·

From a user's perspective, the review is absolutely necessary and really needs to be much better on Android. Proactive vetoing of malware from distribution is m

by beojan 5y ago

From a user's perspective, the review is absolutely necessary and really needs to be much better on Android. Proactive vetoing of malware from distribution is much better than reactive malware scanning against a signature library. That doesn't really justify a slice of subscription revenue though.

echelon 5y ago
> review is absolutely necessary Wholeheartedly disagree. I download software on Linux and Mac frequently without ever having it reviewed. I buy physical products that have sensors. These don't get scrutinized. If we truly need a "health inspector", then it should be a third party. Not the mafia that makes the device and frequently launches competing apps and features. And it seems totally uneven that websites can access and deal in the same data, yet they escape review. It's an invented charade that is brutally unfair.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  But you know, that you can also just download and install software on Android? But yes, this requires knowledge of what you are doing. So most people rightfully choose the playstore - and maintaining (and curating) the playstore requires work. So I also think it is fair, if google gets a cut. But 30% and also 15% is just cutthroat price range.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ethbr0 5y ago
  From a user's perspective, what do they want? Availability, cheapness, quality, (all other things), security, privacy Android users don't care that they're being tracked, as long as it doesn't break their app or drain their battery too fast. Google cares that apps track users, because (a) it allows apps to end run around their own ad offering & (b) it provides Apple with a talking point to bludgeon them about the head with. Review is a PR measure masquerading as a user benefit, in order to technically enforce a centralized toll gate.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
The review focuses at potential damage to Apple (their "guidelines"), not for user.

by beojan 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

> review is absolutely necessary Wholeheartedly disagree. I download software on Linux and Mac frequently without ever having it reviewed. I buy physical products that have sensors. These don't get scrutinized. If we truly need a "health inspector", then it should be a third party. Not the mafia that makes the device and frequently launches competing apps and features. And it seems totally uneven that websites can access and deal in the same data, yet they escape review. It's an invented charade that is brutally unfair.

hutzlibu 5y ago
But you know, that you can also just download and install software on Android? But yes, this requires knowledge of what you are doing. So most people rightfully choose the playstore - and maintaining (and curating) the playstore requires work. So I also think it is fair, if google gets a cut. But 30% and also 15% is just cutthroat price range.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ethbr0 5y ago
From a user's perspective, what do they want? Availability, cheapness, quality, (all other things), security, privacy Android users don't care that they're being tracked, as long as it doesn't break their app or drain their battery too fast. Google cares that apps track users, because (a) it allows apps to end run around their own ad offering & (b) it provides Apple with a talking point to bludgeon them about the head with. Review is a PR measure masquerading as a user benefit, in order to technically enforce a centralized toll gate.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

The review focuses at potential damage to Apple (their "guidelines"), not for user.