4 ms·
"The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want." we can debate whether this is bad thing or good thing, i
by tonyhart7 11mo ago
"The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want."
we can debate whether this is bad thing or good thing, it would have no ends
what matters is reality, the reality is google have the right to change it.
- engeljohnb 11mo agoYou've changed the subject. We were discussing whether one ought to use Google's term for it, or the term that's been used to describe this action since (I assume) the beginning of personal computing. Not whether Google is legally allowed to make the change. My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.
- tonyhart7 11mo ago"You can install any app you want" the asnwer is not anymore
- engeljohnb 11mo agoWhat does that have to do with whether we should say "install" or "sideload?"
- Zak 11mo agoCalling something a right is an assertion about morality; it implies that a law to the contrary would be a violation of that right. I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition.
- tonyhart7 11mo ago"I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition." but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this
- ndriscoll 11mo agoThey all should be? I've never understood why gamers just accept constant blatant anti-competitive practices, going so far as to act as if "exclusives" via DRM are a good thing rather than monopolistic product tying. e.g. it's been demonstrated that a Steam Deck is technically capable of running Switch games better than a Switch, and yet you are forced to buy a Switch in order to buy the games. It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms.
- tonyhart7 11mo agobecause steam deck is more like "PC" than a console I know, I know everything can be a "PC" if you look close enough but hear me people can create their own ecosystem of walled garden whenever they want
- immibis 11mo agoI do not get this use of the word "reality"? The reality is Ted Bundy's currently-at-large successor has the ability to shoot me with a gun. And that fact is about as relevant as what you said. What you're doing here is resigning from a game just because of the fact there is a game, and then being condescending to other people for trying to win the game instead, as if what you're doing is something superior. This would already be very odd behaviour if this were only Monopoly or Risk, but is downright dangerous propaganda when the game is capitalism and the future of free computing is at stake.
- tonyhart7 11mo ago"future of free computing is at stake." that is what AOSP are, android remain "free" the ecosystem around android??? remain google rights and rightfully so since google fund and develop most of it same like apple does, microsoft does, nintendo does. nothing wrong againts that