Uhm - there was a context to that. Read back to the comment you were replying to.
No thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Wins 'Total Victory' in Google Play Store Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Very good, now they need to push this on Apple, too.
When Android apps are sideloaded, they can't auto-update through Google Play (devs usually come up with their own solutions), they are not included in backups, and there are some other small quirks as well.
Which is not how things should work, of course.
When Android apps are sideloaded, they can't auto-update through Google Play (devs usually come up with their own solutions), they are not included in backups, and there are some other small quirks as well.
Which is not how things should work, of course.
No thanks. I’m already up to speed and know your comment makes no sense. 😉
How do you think they should work? If people side load from outside Google Play Store, it's not Google's problem.
The enforcer that could break up Apple and Google is facing upheaval
“An episode like this shows that political intervention works.”
www.theverge.com
Could be nothing, or it could well throw a spanner into the lawsuits that Apple and Google are currently facing.
Something being inconvenient on an Android platform is absolutely Google's problem. Side-loaded apps should have the same capabilities as those coming from the «official» store.
Capitalist shills celebrating political interference in an antitrust regulator is surely... something.The enforcer that could break up Apple and Google is facing upheaval
“An episode like this shows that political intervention works.”
Could be nothing, or it could well throw a spanner into the lawsuits that Apple and Google are currently facing.
Many people in this thread are coming up with «Target in Walmart» analogy, which completely misses the point.
Not only App Store is a store, but it also is a mechanism for installing software on an iPhone. Same with Google Play.
The fact that you have to sideload another store and have a subpar experience during the process (having to download an installer, having to confirm that you accept security risks or whatever, not having access to native auto-updates and cloud backups, etc.) is such an obvious abuse of power, I'm surprised it's not being investigated yet.
Of course we should be able to install competing stores directly from the default store, just like we can install alternative browsers which then can fully replace Safari or Chrome.
Not only App Store is a store, but it also is a mechanism for installing software on an iPhone. Same with Google Play.
The fact that you have to sideload another store and have a subpar experience during the process (having to download an installer, having to confirm that you accept security risks or whatever, not having access to native auto-updates and cloud backups, etc.) is such an obvious abuse of power, I'm surprised it's not being investigated yet.
Of course we should be able to install competing stores directly from the default store, just like we can install alternative browsers which then can fully replace Safari or Chrome.
Counterpoint - game consoles like the Nintendo Switch do not allow you to do any of the above. I can't sideload steam, Nintendo is actively disabling internet access to devices found violating their EULA, and they are even locking down the usb-c port so you can't use third party docks. Funnily enough, payment processors don't seem to have come for Nintendo the same way they gunned for Steam. Yet. 🤔
Abuse of power? All of that sounds like completely legitimate user protection to me. You do realize that sideloading and third-party app stores are massive vectors of malware on Android, right?
That sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. If you download the store from the Play Store, “normal” users are going to assume that all the apps in the alternative store are fine and safe. They’ll say “Google wouldn’t let me download this App Store if it wasn’t safe” as they download the scam App Store filled with malware-infested versions of cracked legitimate apps.
Remember, most users are not technically proficient MacRumors forum posters. They’ll see some sketchy ad about “Get your favorite games for free: the secret Google doesn’t want you to know about”, click a link, and rather than having to navigate installing a third party store and seeing a bunch of completely legitimate warnings from Google, they’ll be taken to a legitimate Play Store link for easy download.
That depends on how those capabilities are provided. If they are provided by the app. vendor in the app. (e.g.: like when Microsoft Office automatically scans for and offers to download updates), it should be no problem. If Google's own Play Store is monitoring for updates, notifying, downloading and installing, then that's a Google Play Store feature and no, there's no reasonable expectation they are obligated to provide their service to 3rd party app. stores.
That would be like if a grocery store offered free delivery, and somebody said they ought to have to provide delivery from other grocery stores to, because people should be able to get the same user experience when using a different grocery store.
What's preventing a 3rd party app. store developer from making their app. store provide the same service?
Of course you have to side load another app. store, just like if you want to shop at Target instead of Walmart you have to get in your car and drive there. Walmart's not gonna offer free shuttle service to Target.
Since Google doesn't vet app.s in 3rd party stores (I'm guessing they do in the Google Play Store), notifying the user there are security risks and 'you're on your own' is the right thing to do.
They'll have access to auto-updates and cloud backups if that 3rd party app. store maker makes their app. store do those things.
No. Not if it's possible side load those competing stores. Otherwise it's forcing Google to market competitor services on their own system, which is seriously screwed up.
Many of these arguments remind me of criticisms of the EU regulation against the mandate of type C ports on iPhones (and android phones).
Do you still see people complaining of Apple being forced to ditch the Lightning?
I don't think so
There are people who will complain about literally anything Apple is required to do -- even pay taxes!
I'm glad Apple switched to USB-C -- and they would have done it, eventually, anyway, just not as soon.
But I'm not in favor (or in favour, if you prefer
of the EU or any other government mandating that change. Just remember, millions of pounds of Lightning cables were dumped in landfills as a result of that change, too.
As much as I prefer USB-C on the phone, mandating which connectors phones are required to use is absolutely idiotic and will freeze port innovation. No one has any incentive to spend tens of millions of dollars to develop and popularize a new port now if it can't be used in the EU.
Remember the EU previously wanted to mandate Micro-USB but thankfully failed; why anyone thinks mandating what port phones use is a good idea after that, I will never understand. Imagine if we were stuck with Micro-USB because a bunch of bureaucrats think they know better than the tech companies.
Particularly stupid to mandate USB-C when Apple was clearly moving in that direction. "Apple isn't moving fast enough, so let's freeze technology." You'd think being able to think of the second and third order effects of regulations would be a valuable skill for a regulator to have, but apparently not in the EU.
I'm glad Apple switched to USB-C -- and they would have done it, eventually, anyway, just not as soon.
But I'm not in favor (or in favour, if you prefer
Just remember, millions of pounds of Lightning cables were dumped in landfills as a result of that change, too.
I see your viewpoint but I respectfully disagree.
The USB-C mandate is programmed to be reviewed in a few years, and the argument about pollution by lightning cables could be made against Apple using type- C for tablets (and macbooks) and lightning for phones.
i see this as one of those sectors where belief in deregulation is a bit idealistic and naive.
Another example of this is the NACS/type 1 adapter, where the rest of the world which mandated the type 2 adapter has already reached an uniform adoption, while deregulated areas have the risk of finding chargers with either type 1 or NACS
Doesn’t matter if it gets reviewed if no one is building a better cable because companies don’t want to spend tens of millions and then hope they can convince regulators that the cable is worth changing the standard over.
Yes, I agree it’s a great example. Regulators made the choice in Europe and they got stuck with bulkier, heavier, more rigid, and significantly more failure-prone charger, while in the US it took a bit longer, but the free market settled on the far superior charger. (Speaking from experience here as an EV owner who has frequently used both cable types).
Why? Do you resent great success, or is there something specific at issue? After all, the term 'big tech' extends well past Apple and Google.
I think the disagreement is mainly philosophical. We recognize there are limits to individual (and corporate) liberty and governmental morally legitimate authority, and that those 2 factors are often at odds...but it's where to draw the line that triggers disagreement.
Hardly anybody wants to live in anarchy or an extreme totalitarian state. Free will and liberty are seen by many as needful to meaningful life vs. 'your rights end where my nose begins.' So individuals and corporations should be able to do whatever they wish until...what? What is the level of outsider imperilment/interest that must be met to justify imposing on their liberty?
We understand government has to establish some basic order (e.g.: which side of the road to drive on, speed limits on roads), and set some 'where my nose begins' limits on potential harms (e.g.: environmental regulations to protect us from high toxin levels, high noise population in residential areas, etc...). I think most of us would agree up to this point.
But what happens when something isn't a matter of infringing on someone else's rights or causing someone else harm? What if it's mainly about the person acting in self-damaging ways (e.g.: eat too much salt/fat/carb.s/fried food, smoke, don't wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet - and thus mandating seat belts, helmets, 'sin taxes,' etc...)? Or what if it's about making the world a 'better place' according to somebody else's agenda (e.g.: forcing small device makers to standardize on USB-C ports for charging)?
This is where the philosophical breakdown in agreement over the legitimate scope of government authority comes into play. Is government only to prohibit evil or should it mandate 'good?' I like it that Apple went to USB-C, but resent the E.U. forcing it. Likewise, I love seat belts but resent every 'Buckle Up; Your Safety Is Now the Law' type sign I see. But there are obviously people who support those things.
From this mindset, the desire for deregulation (or not regulating to begin with) is not naive; it's principled. Whether the imposed USB-C standard will undermine/delay future development of a superior standard is interesting, but not really the main point (although we should be mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences!).
Differences in philosophical views on this matter drive some of the disagreements I've seen on MacRumors lately where governmental regulation is involved, and I think it's a factor in this one as well.
Another fine example. From a consumer perspective, yes, it would convenient and useful if everywhere you went had the same type of charger that your device uses. Whether that gives regulators the moral right to force all private companies that make chargers to standardize on one type is then the question...and experience shows there will be no unanimous agreement on that.
This matters because in some people's minds you need only demonstrate that the societal effects of an action (e.g.: seat belt laws, USB-C charging, breaking up big tech. companies) look to be 'good' overall, and that establishes that the government should do it. And some do not believe that. It's a dynamic worth being mindful of as we debate (i.e.: some arguments will never end).
Yes, but you said 'big tech.' That would include Microsoft, Meta and possibly some other companies that don't get as much mainstream consumer notice (e.g.: I'm not sure how Oracle is doing these days). And you said 'break' big tech, not simply curb some specified objectionable business practice (e.g.: an exclusivity agreement).
A reasonable inference would be that you want them broken because something about their size and power bothers you, as opposed to a least restrictive measure necessary to stop a wrongful practice mindset. There may be more to it or that might be wholly inaccurate, so rather than presume, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
I saw this, beyond the environmental impact, as a way to increase inter compatibility among different devices.
As an example, all power grids’ frequency and voltage (and maximum amperage) are standardised across the world to local standards.
about self-harm (cigarettes, junk food, drugs and medical solutions,..) I see those regulations not as an attack on personal autonomy, but as a way to regulate trade between the selling corporations (since most of those products are sourced by and through companies) and the customers, which is good because the big companies have a level of resources that the average guy doesn’t