> 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 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.
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.
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 ↗