Just to add, there are multiple app stores available for Android devices. I hate Google, but this seems like an odd attack at first glance
Comment on Epic judge says he’ll ‘tear the barriers down’ on Google’s app store monopoly
rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Why is the Google play store a monopoly if you can sideload apps, but the Apple store isn’t one although you can’t sideload apps? I’m not pro-Google, I’m just trying to understand.
Cadeillac@lemmy.world 3 months ago
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Yup, I use F-Droid for most of my apps, and Aurora as an anonymous FE to the Play store. I also have a couple apps sideloaded.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Ok, I’m going to preface this by saying I don’t agree with the ethics of this, because I’ve been shot for just being the messenger in the past when I’ve spoken about this. That somehow by explaining the situation it means I’m sliding with Google or Apple. I am not.
But it’s because the case and the judge aren’t ruling on it from a Google > smartphone user POV (where Apple’s store is objectively even more of a monopoly than the Play Store).
They’re looking at it from a Google > phone OEM POV. Google effectively forces companies to use the play store, otherwise they can’t access Android functionality that has been shifted to play services, they don’t get to upstream patches to AOSP, they can’t access Google Apps (which are effectively required if you want to have people buy your device). Google enforces that OEMs don’t have alternative app stores set as the default. Etc.
Apple has no such equivalent. They aren’t forcing anything on OEMs, because they themselves are the OEM. If the only phones with a Play Store were Google’s own Pixel phones, the ruling would’ve went like Apple’s.
The case is about Google abusing their market position to push OEMs into using the Play Store. Not end users.
rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
That makes sense, thanks