| ▲ | engeljohnb 2 hours ago |
| The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want. The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree. I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee." We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google. |
|
| ▲ | gruez an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| >The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want. Could've fooled me. Maybe it was a thing a decade ago when android just launched, but none of the marketing pages for vaguely recent phones has that as a selling point. At best it's a meme that android proponents repeat on hn or reddit. |
| |
| ▲ | engeljohnb an hour ago | parent [-] | | We're not talking about phones, we're talking about an operating system. If those companies could port IOS to their phone, they probably would. Since the OS will be mostly the same across devices, it makes sense to market a phone based on hardware differences -- like having a higher quality camera. I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility. |
|
|
| ▲ | tonyhart7 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want." we can debate whether this is bad thing or good thing, it would have no ends what matters is reality, the reality is google have the right to change it. |
| |
| ▲ | engeljohnb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You've changed the subject. We were discussing whether one ought to use Google's term for it, or the term that's been used to describe this action since (I assume) the beginning of personal computing. Not whether Google is legally allowed to make the change. My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense. | | | |
| ▲ | Zak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Calling something a right is an assertion about morality; it implies that a law to the contrary would be a violation of that right. I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition. | | |
| ▲ | tonyhart7 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition." but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this | | |
| ▲ | Zak an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It might be illegal in the EU under the DMA. As I understand it, litigation involving Apple's equivalent is in progress, and the outcome may not be known for years. Wrong in this context is an assertion about morality. I do think it's wrong in the context of consumer products for a vendor to attempt to override the wishes of the owner of the product outside of a few narrow exceptions. I would absolutely apply that to iOS, and I think the DMA didn't go far enough; Apple should have no ability to enforce notarization or charge fees to app developers if the device owner chooses otherwise. I feel less strongly about game consoles because they're not as important as smartphones; they don't touch most aspects of life in modern society, and there are viable alternatives for their primary function, such as gaming on PCs. I don't like their business model and I don't own one. | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They all should be? I've never understood why gamers just accept constant blatant anti-competitive practices, going so far as to act as if "exclusives" via DRM are a good thing rather than monopolistic product tying. e.g. it's been demonstrated that a Steam Deck is technically capable of running Switch games better than a Switch, and yet you are forced to buy a Switch in order to buy the games. It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms. | | |
| ▲ | tonyhart7 an hour ago | parent [-] | | because steam deck is more like "PC" than a console I know, I know everything can be a "PC" if you look close enough but hear me people can create their own ecosystem of walled garden whenever they want | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent [-] | | Antitrust law exists exactly to prevent companies from making their own ecosystem/walled garden that competitors cannot sell into. Product tying (forcing you to buy product B in order to buy product A) falls under that umbrella. Game console are not magical in this regard. |
|
|
|
|
|
