It’s not about if a company is shafting you then don’t use them. If a company is shafting it’s userbase, it shouldn’t fall squarely on the customers to make a company stop shafting them, it’s legislators and governments with teeth who should do something about it.
Try telling this argument to the team behind Netscape Navigator. Microsoft’s most attractive aspect was using their Windows market share to, in their case, take market share in other submarkets like browsers and word processors. If the customers don’t want to be behind such a dick move, they shouldn’t use it?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The problem is that there’s only really two ecosystems: Google and Apple. If there was more competition, maybe it would be fine if users opt-in to a closed ecosystem, but if there’s only two options, there’s a strong incentive from both parties to collude to prevent new competitors.
That said, I’m similar to you, I use GrapheneOS as well and have only owned the one Apple device (also iPod touch), and I largely avoid both ecosystems. However, going a third way definitely has significant repurcussions, as in I can’t use many apps because they require Google’s ecosystem to function.
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Thanks for your input! Is that what’s happening here, though?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Not sure, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t investigated either party to know for sure. But what I do see is both the App Store and Play Store using “security” as an excuse to lock apps to their respective ecosystems. So whether there’s overt collusion is anyone’s guess, but they both seem to be playing with a similar set of cards.
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Oh damn, is Google moving toward not allowing apps to be installed from outside the Play Store?
Regardless, I see now how it’s a problem; if we let Apple do it, and then Google decides to too, we’re fucked, and it would then be unfair to not let Google do it since the precedent was set by allowing Apple to