upvote
They don't need record fines. They need to be liquidated and their entire c-suite and board of directors barred from serving in any executive management capacity of any business more complex than a sole proprietorship.
reply
How do we do this though? Like who do I vote for to make this a reality? Republicans? Hardly. Democrats? Also no.
reply
This apathy is somewhat absurd considering Lina Khan had been reviving moribund antitrust laws to aggressively push back against Big Tech/monopoly abuses. To the point that she was portrayed as a cartoonish villain by the SV billionaire class who vowed to get rid of her by donating to Trump.

They appreciate this sort of political nihilism where everyone seems to have collective amnesia about the current status quo vs. just a couple years ago and so lament "nothing ever changes, voting is pointless".

reply
That's great actually. And its not apathy I'm feeling, its more like frustration wrapped around helplessness. So great I can support Lina Khan, but how successful will the billionaires be in casting her as a villain to enough people to get her voted out and replaced with another sycophant?
reply
Extremely, considering that's exactly what they did.
reply
Of course they do, when you as a developer no longer offer an app they want in the old store.
reply
Provided there is no competitor in the store they already use, and that you as the developer do not bankrupt and consequently offer your app nowhere.
reply
Provided the rapture doesn't come, so what? Provided infinite things. It adds or removes nothing.

And yet trivial little alternatives like idk maybe you ever heard of Steam did actually happen, or the entire Android ecosystem itself when there was already an immense Palm app ecosystem that was like desktop apps where you got apps all manner of ways from physical sd cards to web sites to various curated stores. Or idk Epic, over a single app. They are back on the traditional stores now only because they called everyone's bluff and were suceeding, so the old stores caved rather than be seen to lose to someone so much smaller and newer, even in a small way that was more appearance than material.

There is no such thing as unthinkable. It's all not only thinkable, it has all actually already happened before and multiple times.

If something seems unimaginable, that only says something about your imagination not the reality.

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

reply
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"
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
Apple never claimed to be an open ecosystem that allowed users to install anything they liked without interference.
reply
Actually, from 2007 (first iPhone) to 2008 (the App Store), they kind of did.
reply
Apple made it perfectly clear that iDevices would be a walled garden when they released the SDK for third party applications.
reply
That’s retconning at its best - there was no support for 3rd party apps then, just websites.
reply
No amount of "they did it first", "they did it better" entitles them to monopolistic behavior.
reply