• blackfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are unfortunately correct. Its the same sort of argument that got Microsoft. If they don’t allow competition from the start its fine if they do and work to undermine that competition then its by definition anti competitive and monopolistic. Crazy I know.

    • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      work to undermine that competition then its by definition anti competitive and monopolistic.

      But what exactly did they do though? Several OEMs have their own app stores (Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo etc) and they’re not restricted in any way, nor is the Play Store promoted over their native app stores on those devices. Finally, you’re free to download any app store (F-Droid, Aurora, Apptoide) etc on pretty much every Android phone. So what exactly is anti-competitive here?

      • LibreFish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        nor is the Play Store promoted over their native app stores on those devices

        Google actually forces it’s installation if you want to use the android trademark. It’d probably be pretty hard to market “MotorolaOS”

        • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t see the issue here. Is it really that bad to bundle your own apps in your own OS? Also, even though they bundle the store, it’s not like they’re forcing you to use it, nor is it prominently promoted over any other native stores.

          • LibreFish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think the issue could be that it’s forcing the companies to include it, even if the company can include alternatives as well or when user can just ignore it. Not a lawyer, but back when Apple was in the courts I heard social media lawyers saying that Google actually had a worse prospect because when you force your competitors (other non-google phone makers that use Android forks) to bundle G Play/Services it can be considered “tying”. Then if a company just uses the GPL code without following the contractual rules like that they can’t advertise Android and it it could hurt their market share.

      • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just spitballing, but maybe the Google play services that lots of apps require to run? So even if you have a third party store you likely still need those services that also lump in a bunch of other stuff for Google’s benefit.

        • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t need to use the Google Play Services at all. Developers only use it because it’s convenient, but you’re not forced to use it. A lot of users here on Lemmy for example (myself included) use alt stores like F-Droid, Droid-ify etc without any issues.