'Fortnite' developer Epic has pushed back on Google’s control of the Android app store. The courtroom showdown could force the search giant to offer users more apps, at more affordable prices.
Surely the warning is justified though? Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable and other platforms also warn users about apps from unverified sources, so it is common within the industry. If the play store is determined to be a monopoly, and gets broken up or off, I think a warning would still be warranted.
The default install thing used to be an issue, i.e. MS Explorer, but people seem to have stopped caring since all OS’s now have pre-installed junk.
I guess the argument could be made thst the play store should allow downloading of other app stores? I’d be in favor of that, but I don’t know if the courts can force something like that.
99% of of users never get over that hurdle, which makes it unreasonable. “Monopoly” is the wrong term to use and it distracts from the issue - the better term is “Market Power”. Google has enough power to have a potentially damaging impact on the industry. With that power comes responsibility to not do any damage - that’s not just my opinion it’s also the law (not in those exact words obviously).
Also - the apps are from “unverified sources” because Google deliberately refuses to verify them. They’re happy to verify and assign a trust rating to every single webpage in the world… why are apps treated different? The simple answer is because Google makes more money by refusing to verify apps unless they share 30% of their revenue - which is basically extortion. There’s no way they’re doing enough work to justify a fee that high.
Sure, charge whatever fee you want but allow third party stores to compete fairly. In that world if they want to continue charging as much as they are now, they need to offer a hell of a lot more than developers are getting right now for their money.
Surely the warning is justified though? Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable and other platforms also warn users about apps from unverified sources, so it is common within the industry. If the play store is determined to be a monopoly, and gets broken up or off, I think a warning would still be warranted.
The default install thing used to be an issue, i.e. MS Explorer, but people seem to have stopped caring since all OS’s now have pre-installed junk.
I guess the argument could be made thst the play store should allow downloading of other app stores? I’d be in favor of that, but I don’t know if the courts can force something like that.
99% of of users never get over that hurdle, which makes it unreasonable. “Monopoly” is the wrong term to use and it distracts from the issue - the better term is “Market Power”. Google has enough power to have a potentially damaging impact on the industry. With that power comes responsibility to not do any damage - that’s not just my opinion it’s also the law (not in those exact words obviously).
Also - the apps are from “unverified sources” because Google deliberately refuses to verify them. They’re happy to verify and assign a trust rating to every single webpage in the world… why are apps treated different? The simple answer is because Google makes more money by refusing to verify apps unless they share 30% of their revenue - which is basically extortion. There’s no way they’re doing enough work to justify a fee that high.
Sure, charge whatever fee you want but allow third party stores to compete fairly. In that world if they want to continue charging as much as they are now, they need to offer a hell of a lot more than developers are getting right now for their money.