this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
150 points (96.3% liked)
Games
16396 readers
568 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they're going to ask for that and Google will reply "that has always been possible, look at F-Droid".
Iirc this is phrased in a slightly misleading way. What they actually want is apps on the play store to be allowed to use their own billing system. And they want to be allowed to offer alternative store apps on the play store.
Android itself or more precise AOSP is open source and of course anyone can do anything with it. This is about what is or isn't allowed in the context of google app ecosystem that comes with 99.9% of all devices running android.
That makes a bit more sense, however that is very unfair to google, because it allows people to put an app for free on the store and profit on the outside without paying anything to google for providing the infrastructure to host and distribute the app. I wonder if Epic would allow a game that you need to buy from inside the game after installed to be distributed for free in their store, or steam to be distributed through their store.
Well technically it's still $25 registration fee for the developer. Also, more apps being available on a platform increases the value of that platform, so google benefits even if an app is free. But I get what you are saying.
But this is where the whole monopoly argument comes into play. Just paraphrasing the issue quickly: No app store works even almost as well as play on android. And google is doing that on purpose. First issue is installing the alternative store in the first place. You have to download apks and accept scary warning how this is very very unsafe and you will get hacked and lose all your money and it's your own fault. Then after that it still does not really work as a store should, you have to manually check for updates and approve every single update individually. Only way to get around that is to unlock bootloader and root, which 99.9% of users can't and won't do, and then we have safetynet put in place by google that btw does not check for any actual safety features but only checks if you modified your system, aka tried to escape google hell, and causes all kind of issues.
So in short if Android was a platform where stores and billing systems could compete in a fair way your argument would absolutely make sense. The whole point though is that it's not, that google made damn sure that the only viable option for any company creating apps for android is to use their store and their ecosystem. Sure, if you ask google of course it's all just for your safety and surely has nothing to do with them making a shitload of money. The jury decided on exactly that and their verdict is very clear, understandably.
Don't worry though, there are still decades worth of appeals and other legal moves google can pull off to slow down any potential change. And by the time this case is won by google in 2040 everyone will fully accept this as normal and have already forgotten about the case in the first place. Just like with Microsoft some twenty years ago. Surely they don't bundle their OS with a browser anymore, right? Wasn't there a lawsuite?
Long story short I'm pretty sure Google will keep it's monopoly. They got unlimited amount of money to throw at lawyers and for out-of-court settlements. Epic doesn't stand a chance, they are on a whole different level.
I mean, I get those warnings though, you are installing a binary that was not reviewed, and of all of the other major OSs, this is essentially impossible on iOS, you get a very similar warning on Windows, and you need to use sudo on Linux, and I've never used Mac in any significant capacity, so I don't think that's a good argument.
The auto update thing could be a reasonable argument though.
And yeah, I know that realistically nothing will change, but I'm still surprised that Google lawyers couldn't demonstrate to a jury that they're not preventing other companies from using their stores in Android and that the security measures are acceptable and an industry standard.
All the best lawyers in the world can't get a jury full of idiots to stop being stupid.
The lawyers pick the jury...
They don't just have an unlimited ability to exclude jurors. Epic also had an interest in making sure people with brains didn't get seated.
And Google had the opposite interest. Are you suggesting that Google's lawyers are incompetent at selecting a jury?
I'm suggesting that it would have been a pretty difficult task to get a jury with enough technical knowledge.
Warnings make sense. Do you really trust the average user to successfully download a proper apk, and do things like check if the site is legit and check sums?
Windows has UAC warnings for outside program installs. Same with Linux once you start installing stuff from outside the repistory.
Epic already have itch.io, Spotify, Discord and more on their store. Each has its own payments system. Microsoft also distributes the Epic launcher via its store.