5 ms·

That's why AppStore monopolize are such a chore. There is no independent judicial authority if something between Google and a App Provider goes wrong. Google pl

That's why AppStore monopolize are such a chore. There is no independent judicial authority if something between Google and a App Provider goes wrong. Google playing legeslative, executive and judiciary in one entity. There is a reason most people in democratic countries don't like it, if there country has all the powers in one hand. At the same time it seams to be accepted for cooperation, as long as there are big enough.

grishka 2y ago
This isn't as much of a problem on Android because it allows installing apks. There's plenty of apps that couldn't possibly be allowed in Google Play that are distributed using alternative means. It's a much more serious problem with iOS, where if Apple doesn't like your app, your service, your policies, or even your attitude, you just aren't getting your app out to your users, period. But we'll see where EU DMA takes this.
- cube00 2y ago
  Good luck getting a regular consumer to agree to all the scary warnings presented when you do that.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    I didn't even read the warnings to install fortnite, but it seemed Apple tried to make it as confusing as possible. Click install, go to settings, white list the provider, go back to the browser, click back to try installing again ... and then finally, click "yes I am sure" then click "yes I am sure" like 3 more times. So complicated.
  - grishka 2y ago
    On Android, there isn't really a scary warning. You have to allow whatever app you're installing the apk from to install apps form "unknown sources". That's it. You only have to do it once per source. On iOS, I'm sure the EU regulators will demand that Apple at least tone down their warnings.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      What they should tone down is the requirement to share your app with Apple even if distributing it outside the store and to revenue share with them. The warnings are just that.
- rvnx 2y ago
  It's about distribution and being visible. If you are not on the Play Store you lose the majority of your installations. It's like a musician who is not on YouTube and not on Spotify. Or a website that is not on Google Search.
  - grishka 2y ago
    IMO not quite. Here's how I see it: - Generic utility apps, the kind that you would search by what they do, like an audio player, an image converter, or a file manager — yes, it works for them like you say. - Those free to play mobile games everyone knows and loves (no). They buy stupid amount of ads to get people to install them. They may get some installations thanks the app stores themselves, e.g. from the top charts, assuming they get high enough there. So app stores do play a role in their visibility, but a limited one. And this is where it ends. - Apps for IRL services, like getting around (taxi/scooter rental/car sharing), or ordering food, or many other similar things. They get popular because people see their logos around them all the dang time, often together with QR codes with download links. They also often buy ads. Sometimes people recommend them to each other. App stores don't play any significant role for these. - Apps for something you already use. Like your home utilities, or your bank, or some sort of "smart" device you got, or loyalty programs. Again, you don't discover these thanks to app stores, you usually install them because that company says "we have an app, get it here". - Social/collaboration apps, the kind that are useless without people you know also using them. No one searches app stores for "social media" or "messaging" or "calls". People recommend them to each other. People see that their friends are on there and get on there too. Again, app stores don't do much here.
    - danhor 2y ago
      While people don't discover these apps on the play store, they will hear of the App, search on the App/Play Store and install it. If they can't find it by typing the app name into the search bar there, they won't install it. I doubt most users will, even when given the link to an .apk, install it. Either because they are discouraged by the alarming prompts (in my opinion a tradeoff that is unfortunately worth it) or because they get lost.
    - 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Distribution is everything. Controlling distribution through defaults (play store already installed), barriers (pop ups warning you that installing other apps is risky), etc is monopolistic.
- mook 2y ago
  You can't show up in Android Auto unless you're distributed through the Play store (third party things like F-Droid and side loading means your app doesn't show in the car).
  - MobiusHorizons 2y ago
    Good point, that makes a nontrivial difference for apps like organic maps. I know I have used it for offline navigation over CarPlay several times before.
  - Zak 2y ago
    Android Auto developer settings allow access by "unknown sources". https://technastic.com/android-auto-developer-settings/ https://technastic.com/android-auto-developer-settings/
    - summm 2y ago
      This does not work for map applications.
- ktosobcy 2y ago
  I'd argue it's still a problem on Android as google makes it more and more difficult to let alternative installation methods and makes it sound scary :/
hnrepostsold 2y ago
[flagged]
_heimdall 2y ago
Do you really want the government being deeply involved in how every company defines and enforces their own terms of use? In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps. That doesn't mean we need the government playing a role in defining ever company's terms of service, deciding when they're broken, and enforcing the punishment. How would that even scale?
- graemep 2y ago
  They already are. Most countries have consumer laws that limit terms and conditions. The same in many other areas (residential renting in many countries, exclusions for negligence that causes injuries or death,....). Most countries have competition laws that also restrict what companies can do. That is the point here. We need need government intervention when the market lacks competition.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Maybe I misread the GP comment, but there is a big difference in governments defining guard rails for what isn't allowed in any T&Cs and governments being involved directly in every T&Cs.
    - graemep 2y ago
      Yes, but providing fair appeals does not require the government to be involved in evert T & C, just requiring things such as approvals be carried out impartially, and with some channel of appeal. Something like an Ombudsman scheme for app stores would do it.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        That seems reasonable enough. Down with governments and regulations and all that nonsense, but in reality I don't see a problem with governments setting reasonable guard rails for what any T&Cs can or must include.
- palata 2y ago
palata 2y ago
Feels unrelated to me. The problem here is that the entity that owns Google Maps also owns the Google Play Store, and uses their ownership of the Google Play Store to favour Google Maps versus competitors. Even without a monopoly, it should be illegal for the owner of a popular app store to promote their products like this. They just need to get big fat fines when they do it. But of course, "it was an unfortunate mistake". Or we should just split them: Google Maps could be out of Google.
- eitally 2y ago
  I don't think it's true that the Google Play Store favors Google-created apps. In fact, while it may have happened, I can't even remember a time that the Play Store recommended a Google app to me.
  - palata 2y ago
    Is that sarcasm? You forgot the /s.
  - bmicraft 2y ago
    Google will never "accidentally" or even because of a justified policy remove any of their own apps from the store. That's a big favor right there.
    - palata 2y ago
      But on top of that, it is documented that Google does exactly that kind of things. Organic Maps being an example here.
- fmajid 2y ago
  The answer to that is "structural separation". Remove even the possibility of conflict of interest by forcing divestiture.
theginger 2y ago
When app stores act in a way that puts their own interest ahead of the user it harms security, especially when there is no transparency. If I want this app I am now being sent to download an APK, I lose all the protection of the app store. If they cry wolf enough people will get used to doing that. Then when something comes along that is harmful and they want to yank it genuinely to protect users, people will still download the apk.
- YoshiRulz 2y ago
  In this case you don't have to find and sideload an .apk though, it's available in the main F-Droid repo. I'd argue that it would be safer than the Play Store version because F-Droid builds are at least reproducible, while it's not clear what checks are actually done by the Play Store before publishing an update. Most of what Play Protect claims to do could be from a simple malware signature check.

grishka 2y ago

This isn't as much of a problem on Android because it allows installing apks. There's plenty of apps that couldn't possibly be allowed in Google Play that are distributed using alternative means. It's a much more serious problem with iOS, where if Apple doesn't like your app, your service, your policies, or even your attitude, you just aren't getting your app out to your users, period. But we'll see where EU DMA takes this.

cube00 2y ago
Good luck getting a regular consumer to agree to all the scary warnings presented when you do that.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  I didn't even read the warnings to install fortnite, but it seemed Apple tried to make it as confusing as possible. Click install, go to settings, white list the provider, go back to the browser, click back to try installing again ... and then finally, click "yes I am sure" then click "yes I am sure" like 3 more times. So complicated.
- grishka 2y ago
  On Android, there isn't really a scary warning. You have to allow whatever app you're installing the apk from to install apps form "unknown sources". That's it. You only have to do it once per source. On iOS, I'm sure the EU regulators will demand that Apple at least tone down their warnings.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    What they should tone down is the requirement to share your app with Apple even if distributing it outside the store and to revenue share with them. The warnings are just that.
rvnx 2y ago
It's about distribution and being visible. If you are not on the Play Store you lose the majority of your installations. It's like a musician who is not on YouTube and not on Spotify. Or a website that is not on Google Search.
- grishka 2y ago
  IMO not quite. Here's how I see it: - Generic utility apps, the kind that you would search by what they do, like an audio player, an image converter, or a file manager — yes, it works for them like you say. - Those free to play mobile games everyone knows and loves (no). They buy stupid amount of ads to get people to install them. They may get some installations thanks the app stores themselves, e.g. from the top charts, assuming they get high enough there. So app stores do play a role in their visibility, but a limited one. And this is where it ends. - Apps for IRL services, like getting around (taxi/scooter rental/car sharing), or ordering food, or many other similar things. They get popular because people see their logos around them all the dang time, often together with QR codes with download links. They also often buy ads. Sometimes people recommend them to each other. App stores don't play any significant role for these. - Apps for something you already use. Like your home utilities, or your bank, or some sort of "smart" device you got, or loyalty programs. Again, you don't discover these thanks to app stores, you usually install them because that company says "we have an app, get it here". - Social/collaboration apps, the kind that are useless without people you know also using them. No one searches app stores for "social media" or "messaging" or "calls". People recommend them to each other. People see that their friends are on there and get on there too. Again, app stores don't do much here.
  - danhor 2y ago
    While people don't discover these apps on the play store, they will hear of the App, search on the App/Play Store and install it. If they can't find it by typing the app name into the search bar there, they won't install it. I doubt most users will, even when given the link to an .apk, install it. Either because they are discouraged by the alarming prompts (in my opinion a tradeoff that is unfortunately worth it) or because they get lost.
  - 2y ago
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Distribution is everything. Controlling distribution through defaults (play store already installed), barriers (pop ups warning you that installing other apps is risky), etc is monopolistic.
mook 2y ago
You can't show up in Android Auto unless you're distributed through the Play store (third party things like F-Droid and side loading means your app doesn't show in the car).
- MobiusHorizons 2y ago
  Good point, that makes a nontrivial difference for apps like organic maps. I know I have used it for offline navigation over CarPlay several times before.
- Zak 2y ago
  Android Auto developer settings allow access by "unknown sources". https://technastic.com/android-auto-developer-settings/ https://technastic.com/android-auto-developer-settings/
  - summm 2y ago
    This does not work for map applications.
ktosobcy 2y ago
I'd argue it's still a problem on Android as google makes it more and more difficult to let alternative installation methods and makes it sound scary :/

hnrepostsold 2y ago

[flagged]

_heimdall 2y ago

Do you really want the government being deeply involved in how every company defines and enforces their own terms of use? In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps. That doesn't mean we need the government playing a role in defining ever company's terms of service, deciding when they're broken, and enforcing the punishment. How would that even scale?

graemep 2y ago
They already are. Most countries have consumer laws that limit terms and conditions. The same in many other areas (residential renting in many countries, exclusions for negligence that causes injuries or death,....). Most countries have competition laws that also restrict what companies can do. That is the point here. We need need government intervention when the market lacks competition.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Maybe I misread the GP comment, but there is a big difference in governments defining guard rails for what isn't allowed in any T&Cs and governments being involved directly in every T&Cs.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Yes, but providing fair appeals does not require the government to be involved in evert T & C, just requiring things such as approvals be carried out impartially, and with some channel of appeal. Something like an Ombudsman scheme for app stores would do it.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That seems reasonable enough. Down with governments and regulations and all that nonsense, but in reality I don't see a problem with governments setting reasonable guard rails for what any T&Cs can or must include.
palata 2y ago

palata 2y ago

Feels unrelated to me. The problem here is that the entity that owns Google Maps also owns the Google Play Store, and uses their ownership of the Google Play Store to favour Google Maps versus competitors. Even without a monopoly, it should be illegal for the owner of a popular app store to promote their products like this. They just need to get big fat fines when they do it. But of course, "it was an unfortunate mistake". Or we should just split them: Google Maps could be out of Google.

eitally 2y ago
I don't think it's true that the Google Play Store favors Google-created apps. In fact, while it may have happened, I can't even remember a time that the Play Store recommended a Google app to me.
- palata 2y ago
  Is that sarcasm? You forgot the /s.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  Google will never "accidentally" or even because of a justified policy remove any of their own apps from the store. That's a big favor right there.
  - palata 2y ago
    But on top of that, it is documented that Google does exactly that kind of things. Organic Maps being an example here.
fmajid 2y ago
The answer to that is "structural separation". Remove even the possibility of conflict of interest by forcing divestiture.

theginger 2y ago

When app stores act in a way that puts their own interest ahead of the user it harms security, especially when there is no transparency. If I want this app I am now being sent to download an APK, I lose all the protection of the app store. If they cry wolf enough people will get used to doing that. Then when something comes along that is harmful and they want to yank it genuinely to protect users, people will still download the apk.

YoshiRulz 2y ago
In this case you don't have to find and sideload an .apk though, it's available in the main F-Droid repo. I'd argue that it would be safer than the Play Store version because F-Droid builds are at least reproducible, while it's not clear what checks are actually done by the Play Store before publishing an update. Most of what Play Protect claims to do could be from a simple malware signature check.