So what stops these other mythical app stores from being just as predatory and exploitative as the first-party ones?

They don't own the OS. One of the most powerful forces in consumer software is the ability to set defaults. The vast majority of users will never change the default browser, launcher, or app store; most don't even know it's possible. Google's position of controlling Android allows it to be wildly more corrupt and incompetent than any competing app store and still remain the dominant one. If another store does manage to gain a strong foothold, there are any number of OS changes Google can make to hamstring and stifle the competition. The situation is extremely asymmetric.

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean sure, but even if people have the ability to select a different app store, why are they going to do this? Even if you MAKE them do it, on device setup as was commented elsewhere, do we mandate Apple put the 3rd party stores above their own? Can Apple indicate which is theirs, or does this bias the answer the user gives?

And more importantly I didn't ask what the user is picking or not picking, I'm asking: why is there an app store out there that's better than the main one? Is a 3rd party app store going to spin up a CDN, a transactions system, handle the customer service involved there, etc. and then just... not do all the evil shit Google and Apple are doing now, which is why their app stores make so much money? You're asking businesses to enter a market with established competitors with solid and wildly profitable business models, and to just have them make less money for the principle of it. Which like, I agree with, but you're gonna have a SHORT list of investors if that's your pitch.

	▲	sebastiennight an hour ago \| parent [-]
		F-Droid exists, and it seems quite a few people here would tell you it's a superior 3rd-party app store, in the sense of "if an equivalent app exists on F-droid, I'd install that one first, before even looking at whether there's a similar app on the Play store"

▲

benoau 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lack of distribution probably.

But Google has agreed to distribute app stores (in America anyway) for a modest $5000 fee + $5000/year fee + transaction fees.

▲

user43928 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They are hardly mythical, for one I could think of Steam and Epic Games.

Competition is what stops the exploitation.

Epic Games has always offered lower fees and their CEO has been advocating for small developers for years.

There is no reason why Google and Apple get to bundle their stores, and these other big names have to collect the scraps from users who care to look up alternative stores and go through scare screens.

▲

NetMageSCW 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There are very good reasons, starting with the fact that there was no good mobile app experience before Apple created one. And they created one that was half the cost of the terrible stores that existed before.

And they created the hardware and software to make all this possible.

▲

computably 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

None of that explains why the owner of an Apple device can't install alternative app stores, nor the bundling of their own app store.

▲

GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Apple never claimed to be an open ecosystem that allowed users to install anything they liked without interference.

▲

rixed an hour ago | parent [-]

Actually, from 2007 (first iPhone) to 2008 (the App Store), they kind of did.

	▲	GeekyBear 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Apple made it perfectly clear that iDevices would be a walled garden when they released the SDK for third party applications.
	▲	happyopossum 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That’s retconning at its best - there was no support for 3rd party apps then, just websites.

▲

dare944 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No amount of "they did it first", "they did it better" entitles them to monopolistic behavior.