Thread

So long Google, and thanks for all the nudes

264 points · 114 comments · speckx

delichon · 1790620643 · focus · HN ↗
> 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
```
1. user43928 · 1790622008 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
  1. ToucanLoucan · 1790622538 · focus · HN ↗
    So what stops these other mythical app stores from being just as predatory and exploitative as the first-party ones?
    user43928 · 1790623088 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    NetMageSCW · 1790624663 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    computably · 1790625213 · focus · HN ↗
    None of that explains why the owner of an Apple device can't install alternative app stores, nor the bundling of their own app store.
    GeekyBear · 1790626405 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple never claimed to be an open ecosystem that allowed users to install anything they liked without interference.
    rixed · 1790628905 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually, from 2007 (first iPhone) to 2008 (the App Store), they kind of did.
    happyopossum · 1790631603 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s retconning at its best - there was no support for 3rd party apps then, just websites.
    rixed · 1790672573 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    GeekyBear · 1790705425 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    GeekyBear · 1790633332 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple made it perfectly clear that iDevices would be a walled garden when they released the SDK for third party applications.
    computably · 1790800001 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    dare944 · 1790625870 · focus · HN ↗
    No amount of "they did it first", "they did it better" entitles them to monopolistic behavior.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.