3 ms·
If there was really as much demand for the feature you want, someone would build it. Amazon tried, no one cared. People are happy with their devices.
by a-user-you-like 3y ago
If there was really as much demand for the feature you want, someone would build it. Amazon tried, no one cared. People are happy with their devices.
- realusername 3y agoI'm not even talking about features, nobody can build a competitor to this duopoly either due to strong network effects, even Microsoft failed
- a-user-you-like 3y agoThere are smaller competitors, but people just don’t care. And Android is an open platform, so there’s Graphene etc.
- kelnos 3y ago> And Android is an open platform That is a hugely disingenuous mischaracterization of what Android is. AOSP is nowhere near enough to put together modern phone platform that anyone actually wants. And every year it becomes less and less useful due to Google's actions.
- a-user-you-like 3y agoIt was enough for Amazon to slap a store on it and launch a competitor. Yawn. No one cared. If people were really that dissatisfied with Google, they’d move. People don’t dare, Google makes a damn good product. You and I both wish for more privacy features, so we can run one of the forks, or the Solana phone. Or maybe we don’t care enough to do that.
- idle_zealot 3y agoIsn't that the point of this regulation though? The market failed to deliver, so we regulate the desired option into existence. Government functioning as intended.
- a-user-you-like 3y agoCivil government’s (as opposed to self, family, church) function is to secure your God-given rights. Those are negative rights, not positive ones. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not a right to anyone’s labor. If you want this done in the market, do it yourself.
- realusername 3y agoAnything less than 1% marketshare isn't really a "competitor" though for the purpose of antitrust regulations since it doesn't affect the market. And Android isn't really an open platform but a semi-open platform. There's not a single phone on earth running AOSP (not even their own Android emulator) and the Play Store contracts where Google dictates their terms are pretty much mandatory to ship a phone. Then again, there's network effects in play as well.
- a-user-you-like 3y agoWe’re talking about whether or not you can go out and get a phone using one of these alternative stores, and it turns out you can. Android is free enough to allow librem, fdroid, others. Many users. You want the like to be mandatory, using the long arm of the law. I think that’s an obvious overreach.
- realusername 3y ago> bout whether or not you can go out and get a phone using one of these alternative stores, and it turns out you can. Well no, turns out you can't. Any app you might need for basic usage (communication, banking, taxes) isn't on it. Competition in economic terms means actual substitutes and this just ain't it. This is also reflected by their negligible marketshare close to 0%, because well, they just aren't competitors. > You want the like to be mandatory, using the long arm of the law. I think that’s an obvious overreach. I'm not even talking about the political solutions to this duopoly yet, just stating the facts that the competition is dead on the area, then the conclusion on how to solve this are up to debate.
- kelnos 3y agoI guess you haven't ever heard of vendor lock-in.