Won't someone please think of the trillion dollar company's monopoly?!
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37794 readers
237 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This would be so much more of a clear cut case if Apple hadn't won in Epic's suit against them for the same reason. That was a bad call, and now with that inconsistency, Google's argument holds some water.
I just want to play games.
Edit: On a more serious note, I am actually a bit on Googles side here. Because everyone can actually install an alternative store. It's like asking Steam to add an installer for GOG and Epic Games Store in the Steam store. There is no technical limitation on the smartphones why anyone could not install alternative stores or software. The lack of installed alternative stores right from the start is not a fault of Google, but the phone manufactures who did not put these by default.
Overall, am I wrong with my observation? I really think Google is not at fault for this particular thing.
I think the difference is that on a PC, the barrier to installing Epic or GOG is the same as Steam, but with phones and tablets, the operating system itself does everything it can to scare you away from installing an "unofficial" app. There have been plenty of bad actors on the Play Store, but Google is fine pretending like their store is perfect and secure. The fact is, we live in a world where most people take the path of least resistance, and Google is using their money and power to incentivize manufacturers and end-users into certain behaviors. That just harms smaller companies from being able to properly compete.
But that is a decision the user takes, not Google. If people don't want to install alternative stores because its too much work, then its not Googles fault. The problem is that phone manufactures do not have the alternative stores installed (besides Samsung). Its entirely in the hands of phone manufacturers and they should be sued over, not Google.
Google has agreements with the manufacturers that prevent or heavily disincentivize the manufacturers from doing that, otherwise they essentially can't use Android.
It's all Google.
In that case, its all Google I agree.
I know it's insidious. This shit sandwich has so many layers by design that it's easy to misinform even courts, much less people with limited time or willingness to talk about these things.
From now on whenever I talk about Android with Google Play Services I'll refer to it as the "shit sandwich OS"
The reason that Google got ruled against originally was that they were paying and offering incentives to developers to keep them from releasing their apps on other app stores.
Google also doesn't support a user installing the Play Store themselves (and the required Google Play Services dependency). So phone manufactures have to choose to include it on everybody's phone from the get go, or their users won't be able to use it at all.