> I was hoping to publish my new game on the store and charge for it, but their review process is so broken, I think I'll stick to fdroid and itch.io.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. -- Princess Leia
Not really, unless paying users switch to alternative stores, which they don't just because I as a developer face friction in publishing to Google Play.
In fact, Google is making alternative stores even less convenient with their latest 'side-loading' hurdles.
Regulators need to wake up, issue record fines, mandate equal access and a 'Choose your app stores' screen on device setup.
Otherwise competitive third party stores and a fair market are going to remain a pipe dream.
They don't need record fines. They need to be liquidated and their entire c-suite and board of directors barred from serving in any executive management capacity of any business more complex than a sole proprietorship.
This apathy is somewhat absurd considering Lina Khan had been reviving moribund antitrust laws to aggressively push back against Big Tech/monopoly abuses. To the point that she was portrayed as a cartoonish villain by the SV billionaire class who vowed to get rid of her by donating to Trump.
They appreciate this sort of political nihilism where everyone seems to have collective amnesia about the current status quo vs. just a couple years ago and so lament "nothing ever changes, voting is pointless".
That's great actually. And its not apathy I'm feeling, its more like frustration wrapped around helplessness. So great I can support Lina Khan, but how successful will the billionaires be in casting her as a villain to enough people to get her voted out and replaced with another sycophant?
If you only want to support causes you think will already win without your support, stick to watching your favorite sports teams.
You have a clear desire for change and exactly one of the two parties you mentioned has proven to take action in line with that change.
Yes it's hard and annoying and it shouldn't have to take a bunch of good people sacrificing their time and energy just to hold the jerks at a stalemate, but that's the way it is. Apathy is a powerful weapon when the motivated few are opposed by the unmotivated many.
I also wish we had fairness and antitrust and I pretty much do nothing but whine online. I need to dedicate significant time and energy if I want to see things not get worse and I recognize I'm not doing my part so don't take this as admonishment from me, just sympathy.
Hey I like this idea. What about proper taxation so businesses and the rich pay their fair share, workers on the board of a company and how about we enforce some antitrust laws.
I'd also love it if we also enforced existing regulations with teeth. Like of your data center doesn't have a permit for a gas turbine and you run them anyway instead of saying "oh well, you can run them until we settle in court" we toss the CEO in jail to think about their lapse in ethics
If there's a way to do that that doesn't require arbitrary thresholds that won't stand the test of time or in any way screw over regular people's investments, I'd love to hear about it.
The only realistic way to achieve that is to simplify tax law so there are no exemptions, deductions, incentives etc.
Just a plain rate.
It comes with funny side effects, eg companies will suddenly want to make simple things in-house again to save on taxes, and it necessitates tariffs as every other nation is following the current scheme where taxes are only due for the last trade.
The whole tax advisor profession vanishes - only book keeping and accounting would stay.
But let's be real here, it would massively impact the market, it sounds fun on paper for armchair analysts like myself - but real human life's would be ruined from the upheaval
And "the rich" for the most part are paying their fair share.
It's very few which employ highly intelligent tax advisors that skirt them.
Same with companies, most play by the social rules. It's just large multinationals like Google, Apple and similar which get around paying taxes.
And they're mostly paying some taxes in the US too, just in eg Europe they don't at all.
> And "the rich" for the most part are paying their fair share.
In addition to the usual tax dodges, and the lobbying for loopholes/preferential tax policy, companies push a lot of harm onto the rest of society so that it becomes everyone else's problem. "their fair share" should include all of those externalized costs. Tax companies for the air and water they pollute. Tax companies for every employee who isn't paid enough money to support himself. Tax companies for every time one of their products makes people sick. Tax companies for data breeches and security failures. Until companies don't leave everyone else on the hook for cleaning up after their messes, they can't be said to paying anything close to their fair share.
> In addition to the usual tax dodges, and the lobbying for loopholes/preferential tax policy
the latter is just something to do the former
> should include all of those externalized costs
if you actually want to have a serious debate on that topic, you need to actually cite real examples to look at, otherwise it comes off as a general platitude to capture simps who dont actually understand what theyre being told.
> Tax companies for the air and water they pollute
how exactly? and how would that not become a complete dumbsterfire of administration, with ever increasing dystopian oversight of the state?
ever more complicated tax rules, ever more situation in which they can find loopholes etc.
this sounds great until you actually think about how to implement it, then it should become quiet clear, very quickly that you'd only give exactly the companies that "arent paying their fair share" an even bigger advantage then they already have.
> Tax companies for every employee who isn't paid enough money to support himself
seriously, how. again it sounds great as an idea, like everything socialist inspired. Its just in practice to implent this, the state has to become an autocracy at the same level of a dictatorship.
> Tax companies for every time one of their products makes people sick.
isnt that already the case? thats why you get endless legalese on all purchases pointing out all the things you may not do with the product.
If the product makes you sick, youre usually able to sue.
That this doesnt actually achieve what you want should be obvious from the status quo. unless you were seriously talking about tax there. but if you were... what would be the point? the person that was harmed would still be sick and not have gotten any help?
> Tax companies for data breeches and security failures
how do you imagine this working? does the state get a backdoor into every company so it can monitor it for intrusions, so it can throw out punitive fines?
like china basically, where every company needs to have a party member on payroll so the party is always informed on all developments?
Seriously, you didn't think any of those things through.
If you got what you wanted, you get a society akin to the USSR. Thats not something any sane person would want.
The EPA already has the means for on site tests of emissions, industrial discharge, etc. They are also capable of monitoring and investigating to locate the source of problems.
> Its just in practice to implent this, the state has to become an autocracy at the same level of a dictatorship.
What are you even talking about? The government already knows everyone who gets welfare benefits. They also already know who employs those people and how much money they were paid. If a company pays so little that their employee still needs food stamps, the government knows how much it cost taxpayers to subsidize the labor expense of the employer.
> isnt that already the case?
No. It isn't. Same with data breeches and security incidents. Some small percentage of the people who are harmed might join a class action, but most people won't get any compensation for their losses (which may include death) and those that do get something don't typically get anything close to fair compensation, just a few bucks and/or coupons. DuPont poisoned you. Knowingly. How much money did they compensate you for that? People should be directly compensated when possible, but often there are harms that impact everybody, even if not directly. Sometimes it's not possible to track everyone down. It'd be better to invest that money into the society that was harmed than allow companies to profit from it. It's not just about compensation, but also giving an incentive to avoid or limit the harmful behavior. Crowdstrike's fuck up in 2024 cost the economy tens of billions. Do you think they paid that all back? Even the shareholders got screwed (<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/crowdstrike-defeats-shareholder-lawsuit-over-huge-software-outage.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/crowdstrike-defeats-sharehol...). It sure didn't take "a backdoor into every company" to figure out who was responsible for that.
The idea that companies should pay for the harms they cause isn't "socialist inspired" and doesn't require turning into "China" or the "USSR". It's something that any sane person would want. There are lots of ways to get that result. A Pigouvian tax is only one of them, better suited in some situations than others.
How about a progressive tax on unrealized gains above inflation-adjusted $X million?
It's an arbitrary threshold for the start point but it ramps up slowly and uses marginal rates so normal people won't get screwed, and the adjustment makes it time proof. If it ends up catching small business owners then raise the limit until they're safe, or do it as a minimum tax rate instead of adding on to existing taxes.
The other option is limiting total comp inside a company to 5x or 10x median, like they do in the Nordics. But then you would also have to regulate the cash/stock mix, so a fast growing company can't pay its executives in shares when normal workers get stuck holding cash.
Or "just" have strong unions and enforced antitrust laws, we need them anyway but IMO they would take too long to reverse the inequality we already have.
The solution I'm advocating (until somebody can prove that I have my head up my ass on the topic) is increasing moments where an asset becomes cash before it is transferred.
For example, borrow, spend, die is effectively a financial instrument to cash conversion.
Inheritance: Get rid of the inheritance taxes and treat it as cash for tax purposes and have the estate pay the tax.
Make stock buybacks illegal.
I can see there would be an advantage to storing the income averaging part of the tax code so that if someone like us mortals gets a big windfall (inheritance, IPO grant), you can spread the income out over time.
They are hardly mythical, for one I could think of Steam and Epic Games.
Competition is what stops the exploitation.
Epic Games has always offered lower fees and their CEO has been advocating for small developers for years.
There is no reason why Google and Apple get to bundle their stores, and these other big names have to collect the scraps from users who care to look up alternative stores and go through scare screens.
There are very good reasons, starting with the fact that there was no good mobile app experience before Apple created one. And they created one that was half the cost of the terrible stores that existed before.
And they created the hardware and software to make all this possible.
That's the point, in the beginning there were not supposed to be native apps, just web apps, some of them advertised in Apple site but not otherwise privileged.
The point is that customers who bought an iDevice knew in advance that they were buying into a walled garden ecosystem with a web browser.
It was Google that lied to the public about Android being an "open" ecosystem that allowed you to do anything you liked without interference.
Sure, I acknowledge an open ecosystem is at least not something Apple advertises nor what any reasonable consumer believes Apple to be advertising.
My point is that "users installing anything they like" is, or ought to be, a legal right. It's an intrinsic part of ownership of a general-purpose personal computing device.
They don't own the OS. One of the most powerful forces in consumer software is the ability to set defaults. The vast majority of users will never change the default browser, launcher, or app store; most don't even know it's possible. Google's position of controlling Android allows it to be wildly more corrupt and incompetent than any competing app store and still remain the dominant one. If another store does manage to gain a strong foothold, there are any number of OS changes Google can make to hamstring and stifle the competition. The situation is extremely asymmetric.
I mean sure, but even if people have the ability to select a different app store, why are they going to do this? Even if you MAKE them do it, on device setup as was commented elsewhere, do we mandate Apple put the 3rd party stores above their own? Can Apple indicate which is theirs, or does this bias the answer the user gives?
And more importantly I didn't ask what the user is picking or not picking, I'm asking: why is there an app store out there that's better than the main one? Is a 3rd party app store going to spin up a CDN, a transactions system, handle the customer service involved there, etc. and then just... not do all the evil shit Google and Apple are doing now, which is why their app stores make so much money? You're asking businesses to enter a market with established competitors with solid and wildly profitable business models, and to just have them make less money for the principle of it. Which like, I agree with, but you're gonna have a SHORT list of investors if that's your pitch.
F-Droid exists, and it seems quite a few people here would tell you it's a superior 3rd-party app store, in the sense of "if an equivalent app exists on F-droid, I'd install that one first, before even looking at whether there's a similar app on the Play store"
The browser choice menu was mandated to have random order. Whether it was unbiased, I don't actually know. Assuming it was random and unbiased, it couldn't have not worked.
Provided the rapture doesn't come, so what? Provided infinite things. It adds or removes nothing.
And yet trivial little alternatives like idk maybe you ever heard of Steam did actually happen, or the entire Android ecosystem itself when there was already an immense Palm app ecosystem that was like desktop apps where you got apps all manner of ways from physical sd cards to web sites to various curated stores. Or idk Epic, over a single app. They are back on the traditional stores now only because they called everyone's bluff and were suceeding, so the old stores caved rather than be seen to lose to someone so much smaller and newer, even in a small way that was more appearance than material.
There is no such thing as unthinkable. It's all not only thinkable, it has all actually already happened before and multiple times.
If something seems unimaginable, that only says something about your imagination not the reality.
You severely underestimate the market capture of the Google Play Store, the related network effects, their control over Android OS, and their power and motivation to use all of that to prevent any competition from ever getting traction.
F-Droid is not doing too bad. And yet, the vast majority of people will never ever use it after Google Play implenents their developer verification scare screens.
None of your examples succeeded in an environment that was even remotely as hostile, neither Windows nor Palm could have done what Google does today, without risking a fatal user backlash.
It's one thing for something to be thinkable and imaginable. Of course you can imagine Google Play getting dethroned. It's just so incredibly unlikely to happen without regulatory antitrust intervention that it is pointless to consider seriously.
Fdroid can never replace the main default because their strict rules rule out too much. I approve BTW, I like that a special place like fdroid exists, but it can only ever be this special niche thing.
But as time goes on and software tools become more powerful, there is just not much moat. I don't even mean AI, I just mean the ordinary power annordinary computer and the gobs of highblevel languages and frameworks and automation that just grows and grows all the time. It's not that hard to port an app to a new platform, or a new distribution mechanism, or a new clone source for an existing platform and distribution mechanism.
Big universal things with 100% capture get replaced overnight all the time. Everyone switched from MySpace to Facebook in like an hour one day. Other things like my Steam example took longer but they became at least an equal player, a real alternative that normal people could and did choose in numbers that Sony and MS couldn't ignore, pretty quickly.
Everyone switched from Palm to Android pretty quickly.
Google has a few extra levers which is agreements with all the phone manufacturers who in turn have to deal with the carriers, and google are doing the bulk of the ongoing os developement and security work so the manufacturers don't have to.
But they could just start doing that same work, or spin up a new 3rd party who's work they all share, easily, any time. They all actually already maintain half-assed backup plans they can switch to and go whole-assed if google gets that 1% too annoying one day.
There are really no easy robust moats any more. Even the biggest are precarious and have to be actively maintained through constant shenanigans.
No matter how big the capture, it's never actually very strong.
I really want open systems, but the “choose your browser”, “choose your app store”, “choose your email client”, “choose your ai provider” dance is a disgraceful user experience.
Companies should be allowed to set a recommended experience while staying open. Insisting that they offer choice as part of the UI is tangential to the OS allowing them to exist.
delichon · · focus · HN ↗
user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
In fact, Google is making alternative stores even less convenient with their latest 'side-loading' hurdles.
Regulators need to wake up, issue record fines, mandate equal access and a 'Choose your app stores' screen on device setup.
Otherwise competitive third party stores and a fair market are going to remain a pipe dream.
bigbuppo · · focus · HN ↗
Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
qlte · · focus · HN ↗
They appreciate this sort of political nihilism where everyone seems to have collective amnesia about the current status quo vs. just a couple years ago and so lament "nothing ever changes, voting is pointless".
Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
rjbwork · · focus · HN ↗
collingreen · · focus · HN ↗
You have a clear desire for change and exactly one of the two parties you mentioned has proven to take action in line with that change.
Yes it's hard and annoying and it shouldn't have to take a bunch of good people sacrificing their time and energy just to hold the jerks at a stalemate, but that's the way it is. Apathy is a powerful weapon when the motivated few are opposed by the unmotivated many.
I also wish we had fairness and antitrust and I pretty much do nothing but whine online. I need to dedicate significant time and energy if I want to see things not get worse and I recognize I'm not doing my part so don't take this as admonishment from me, just sympathy.
genxy · · focus · HN ↗
malfist · · focus · HN ↗
I'd also love it if we also enforced existing regulations with teeth. Like of your data center doesn't have a permit for a gas turbine and you run them anyway instead of saying "oh well, you can run them until we settle in court" we toss the CEO in jail to think about their lapse in ethics
MrDrMcCoy · · focus · HN ↗
If there's a way to do that that doesn't require arbitrary thresholds that won't stand the test of time or in any way screw over regular people's investments, I'd love to hear about it.
ffsm8 · · focus · HN ↗
Just a plain rate.
It comes with funny side effects, eg companies will suddenly want to make simple things in-house again to save on taxes, and it necessitates tariffs as every other nation is following the current scheme where taxes are only due for the last trade.
The whole tax advisor profession vanishes - only book keeping and accounting would stay.
But let's be real here, it would massively impact the market, it sounds fun on paper for armchair analysts like myself - but real human life's would be ruined from the upheaval
And "the rich" for the most part are paying their fair share.
It's very few which employ highly intelligent tax advisors that skirt them. Same with companies, most play by the social rules. It's just large multinationals like Google, Apple and similar which get around paying taxes. And they're mostly paying some taxes in the US too, just in eg Europe they don't at all.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
In addition to the usual tax dodges, and the lobbying for loopholes/preferential tax policy, companies push a lot of harm onto the rest of society so that it becomes everyone else's problem. "their fair share" should include all of those externalized costs. Tax companies for the air and water they pollute. Tax companies for every employee who isn't paid enough money to support himself. Tax companies for every time one of their products makes people sick. Tax companies for data breeches and security failures. Until companies don't leave everyone else on the hook for cleaning up after their messes, they can't be said to paying anything close to their fair share.
ffsm8 · · focus · HN ↗
the latter is just something to do the former
> should include all of those externalized costs
if you actually want to have a serious debate on that topic, you need to actually cite real examples to look at, otherwise it comes off as a general platitude to capture simps who dont actually understand what theyre being told.
> Tax companies for the air and water they pollute
how exactly? and how would that not become a complete dumbsterfire of administration, with ever increasing dystopian oversight of the state? ever more complicated tax rules, ever more situation in which they can find loopholes etc. this sounds great until you actually think about how to implement it, then it should become quiet clear, very quickly that you'd only give exactly the companies that "arent paying their fair share" an even bigger advantage then they already have.
> Tax companies for every employee who isn't paid enough money to support himself
seriously, how. again it sounds great as an idea, like everything socialist inspired. Its just in practice to implent this, the state has to become an autocracy at the same level of a dictatorship.
> Tax companies for every time one of their products makes people sick.
isnt that already the case? thats why you get endless legalese on all purchases pointing out all the things you may not do with the product. If the product makes you sick, youre usually able to sue. That this doesnt actually achieve what you want should be obvious from the status quo. unless you were seriously talking about tax there. but if you were... what would be the point? the person that was harmed would still be sick and not have gotten any help?
> Tax companies for data breeches and security failures
how do you imagine this working? does the state get a backdoor into every company so it can monitor it for intrusions, so it can throw out punitive fines? like china basically, where every company needs to have a party member on payroll so the party is always informed on all developments?
Seriously, you didn't think any of those things through. If you got what you wanted, you get a society akin to the USSR. Thats not something any sane person would want.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
The EPA already has the means for on site tests of emissions, industrial discharge, etc. They are also capable of monitoring and investigating to locate the source of problems.
> Its just in practice to implent this, the state has to become an autocracy at the same level of a dictatorship.
What are you even talking about? The government already knows everyone who gets welfare benefits. They also already know who employs those people and how much money they were paid. If a company pays so little that their employee still needs food stamps, the government knows how much it cost taxpayers to subsidize the labor expense of the employer.
> isnt that already the case?
No. It isn't. Same with data breeches and security incidents. Some small percentage of the people who are harmed might join a class action, but most people won't get any compensation for their losses (which may include death) and those that do get something don't typically get anything close to fair compensation, just a few bucks and/or coupons. DuPont poisoned you. Knowingly. How much money did they compensate you for that? People should be directly compensated when possible, but often there are harms that impact everybody, even if not directly. Sometimes it's not possible to track everyone down. It'd be better to invest that money into the society that was harmed than allow companies to profit from it. It's not just about compensation, but also giving an incentive to avoid or limit the harmful behavior. Crowdstrike's fuck up in 2024 cost the economy tens of billions. Do you think they paid that all back? Even the shareholders got screwed (<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/crowdstrike-defeats-shareholder-lawsuit-over-huge-software-outage.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/crowdstrike-defeats-sharehol...). It sure didn't take "a backdoor into every company" to figure out who was responsible for that.
The idea that companies should pay for the harms they cause isn't "socialist inspired" and doesn't require turning into "China" or the "USSR". It's something that any sane person would want. There are lots of ways to get that result. A Pigouvian tax is only one of them, better suited in some situations than others.
tancop · · focus · HN ↗
It's an arbitrary threshold for the start point but it ramps up slowly and uses marginal rates so normal people won't get screwed, and the adjustment makes it time proof. If it ends up catching small business owners then raise the limit until they're safe, or do it as a minimum tax rate instead of adding on to existing taxes.
The other option is limiting total comp inside a company to 5x or 10x median, like they do in the Nordics. But then you would also have to regulate the cash/stock mix, so a fast growing company can't pay its executives in shares when normal workers get stuck holding cash.
Or "just" have strong unions and enforced antitrust laws, we need them anyway but IMO they would take too long to reverse the inequality we already have.
rickydroll · · focus · HN ↗
For example, borrow, spend, die is effectively a financial instrument to cash conversion.
Inheritance: Get rid of the inheritance taxes and treat it as cash for tax purposes and have the estate pay the tax.
Make stock buybacks illegal.
I can see there would be an advantage to storing the income averaging part of the tax code so that if someone like us mortals gets a big windfall (inheritance, IPO grant), you can spread the income out over time.
ToucanLoucan · · focus · HN ↗
user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
Competition is what stops the exploitation.
Epic Games has always offered lower fees and their CEO has been advocating for small developers for years.
There is no reason why Google and Apple get to bundle their stores, and these other big names have to collect the scraps from users who care to look up alternative stores and go through scare screens.
NetMageSCW · · focus · HN ↗
And they created the hardware and software to make all this possible.
computably · · focus · HN ↗
GeekyBear · · focus · HN ↗
rixed · · focus · HN ↗
happyopossum · · focus · HN ↗
rixed · · focus · HN ↗
GeekyBear · · focus · HN ↗
It was Google that lied to the public about Android being an "open" ecosystem that allowed you to do anything you liked without interference.
GeekyBear · · focus · HN ↗
computably · · focus · HN ↗
My point is that "users installing anything they like" is, or ought to be, a legal right. It's an intrinsic part of ownership of a general-purpose personal computing device.
dare944 · · focus · HN ↗
benoau · · focus · HN ↗
But Google has agreed to distribute app stores (in America anyway) for a modest $5000 fee + $5000/year fee + transaction fees.
rurp · · focus · HN ↗
ToucanLoucan · · focus · HN ↗
And more importantly I didn't ask what the user is picking or not picking, I'm asking: why is there an app store out there that's better than the main one? Is a 3rd party app store going to spin up a CDN, a transactions system, handle the customer service involved there, etc. and then just... not do all the evil shit Google and Apple are doing now, which is why their app stores make so much money? You're asking businesses to enter a market with established competitors with solid and wildly profitable business models, and to just have them make less money for the principle of it. Which like, I agree with, but you're gonna have a SHORT list of investors if that's your pitch.
sebastiennight · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
Brian_K_White · · focus · HN ↗
user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
Brian_K_White · · focus · HN ↗
And yet trivial little alternatives like idk maybe you ever heard of Steam did actually happen, or the entire Android ecosystem itself when there was already an immense Palm app ecosystem that was like desktop apps where you got apps all manner of ways from physical sd cards to web sites to various curated stores. Or idk Epic, over a single app. They are back on the traditional stores now only because they called everyone's bluff and were suceeding, so the old stores caved rather than be seen to lose to someone so much smaller and newer, even in a small way that was more appearance than material.
There is no such thing as unthinkable. It's all not only thinkable, it has all actually already happened before and multiple times.
If something seems unimaginable, that only says something about your imagination not the reality.
user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
This is very unlikely to change without regulatory intervention.
schubidubiduba · · focus · HN ↗
F-Droid is not doing too bad. And yet, the vast majority of people will never ever use it after Google Play implenents their developer verification scare screens.
None of your examples succeeded in an environment that was even remotely as hostile, neither Windows nor Palm could have done what Google does today, without risking a fatal user backlash.
It's one thing for something to be thinkable and imaginable. Of course you can imagine Google Play getting dethroned. It's just so incredibly unlikely to happen without regulatory antitrust intervention that it is pointless to consider seriously.
Brian_K_White · · focus · HN ↗
But as time goes on and software tools become more powerful, there is just not much moat. I don't even mean AI, I just mean the ordinary power annordinary computer and the gobs of highblevel languages and frameworks and automation that just grows and grows all the time. It's not that hard to port an app to a new platform, or a new distribution mechanism, or a new clone source for an existing platform and distribution mechanism.
Big universal things with 100% capture get replaced overnight all the time. Everyone switched from MySpace to Facebook in like an hour one day. Other things like my Steam example took longer but they became at least an equal player, a real alternative that normal people could and did choose in numbers that Sony and MS couldn't ignore, pretty quickly.
Everyone switched from Palm to Android pretty quickly.
Google has a few extra levers which is agreements with all the phone manufacturers who in turn have to deal with the carriers, and google are doing the bulk of the ongoing os developement and security work so the manufacturers don't have to.
But they could just start doing that same work, or spin up a new 3rd party who's work they all share, easily, any time. They all actually already maintain half-assed backup plans they can switch to and go whole-assed if google gets that 1% too annoying one day.
There are really no easy robust moats any more. Even the biggest are precarious and have to be actively maintained through constant shenanigans. No matter how big the capture, it's never actually very strong.
ricardobeat · · focus · HN ↗
Companies should be allowed to set a recommended experience while staying open. Insisting that they offer choice as part of the UI is tangential to the OS allowing them to exist.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
user43928 · · focus · HN ↗
hulitu · · focus · HN ↗
This is very difficult when the regulators are well paid (lobby) and sleep so well.
aaron695 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]