Ugh. This is the nightmare scenario for walled gardens. Don't like the content? Don't let it into the ecosystem.
I hope the open web continues to exist and we move past the app era, but I think this is a pipe dream. It's Compuserve and AOL 2.0.
I hope the open web continues to exist and we move past the app era, but I think this is a pipe dream. It's Compuserve and AOL 2.0.
I can easily use Google search and YouTube to find out how to block Google's own ads[1] and to root Android phones. Google doesn't censor information that hurts Google's interests.
Microsoft's Bing has information on how to replace Windows Media Player with free and open alternatives like VLC.
Bing even suggests searches to prevent Windows 10 from spying[2].
It is possible to run an ethical platform that doesn't tilt the playing field to the provider of the platform. Apple most definitely does not provide an ethical platform.
(By the way, YouTube has a CCC channel[3].)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ad...
It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect-mob...
This is false equivalence. Just because you can find an example where Google banned an app does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.
Google Play simply doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps. That's the reason the disconnect.me app was removed.
It's telling that other apps from Disconnect are still available on Google Play. Disconnect Search[1], for example, is contrary to Google's interests, but Google does not ban it because it doesn't interfere with other apps.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect....
I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, for now. But they still do bad things, and they could easily get worse in the future. We need to move away from this kind of centralization, so that no one has the power to unilaterally gag legitimate content.
> Google Play doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps.
Almost every app "interferes" with others in some way. The "no interference" clause seems clearly intended to target interference which was unwanted by the user, but that is not how Google applied it here.
If the user expressly intends that the app interfere with other apps, then I think that it is unethical to prohibit them from doing so on their own device. Disconnect is not malware; users install it for exactly the purpose it implements.
Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and install those apps from elsewhere.
It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better than Apple (in my opinion).
However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill an app. Few users know how to sideload things.
In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.
So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave exactly as we want on our devices.
Or apps that play youtube videos while not having focus. There is no defense to that rule. Just trying to act the same as a desktop browser, with ads intact, is not allowed.
"Our Google Play policies (specifically clause 4.4) have long prohibited apps that interfere with other apps (such as by altering their functionality, or removing their way of making money). We apply this policy uniformly — and Android developers strongly support it. All apps must comply with these policies and there’s over 200 privacy apps available in Google Play that do."
https://theintercept.com/2015/06/23/google-disconnect-antitr...
I challenge you to find a Chrome extension in the Chrome web store that lets you download Youtube videos. Does Google allow, say, Amazon app store app in the Play store?
Apple doesn't have a search engine of it's own so I cannot point you to search results showing how to use other software instead of Apple's but do you really think they would censor the results of a search engine? The comparison is irrelevant.
What about that time when Google banned Disconnect from the Play store? [1] Meanwhile Apple actually built a way to create content filters into the OS and actively promotes them in the App Store.
I'm not saying that Apple is without fault, certainly not, but neither of the big companies are a shining beacon of enlightenment, and every one of them operates out of self-interest.
[1] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2411562/google-slap...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/youtube%20download...
Every other app is just a generic video downloader and many explicitly mention that they cannot download youtube videos due to Chrome store restrictions.
Seems to me like instead of conceding that your challenge has been met, you are changing the goalposts.
Are there _any_ Chrome extensions that allow downloading _any_ streaming content, from _any_ source, not just YouTube?
For example, does Chrome allow extensions that save streams from Pandora, or Hulu, or Reuters, or Facebook Video?
Seems to me this policy is enforced equally, it doesn't favor Google properties or exclude competitors.
The Chrome developer agreement states that these extensions are prohibited:
infringes on the intellectual property rights of others
enables the unauthorized download of streaming content or media
It doesn't work with the sites you mentioned, at least not with Reuters or Facebook but it does work with many others. Why is, for example, Vimeo fair game for this extension but Youtube isn't?
there's a reason videographers are on vimeo and photographers are on Flickr.
The CCC recommends using their official Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/mediacccde
Do you think that something like Ethereum (https://www.ethereum.org) would enable us to sidestep these kinds of problems, at least on the web?
What other ways might we design our systems to be resilient against unethical treatment?
Completely agree.
> Do you think that something like Ethereum (https://www.ethereum.org) would enable us to sidestep these kinds of problems, at least on the web?
Honestly not sure. Part of the problem with the way things work today is that everyone is chasing money -- the next hot app, the next unicorn. That's how FB, Apple and Android attracted people into their walled gardens.
As long as we have hungry developers, we are going to have the problem with gardens attracting them.
That sounds like an argument for libertarian socialism...
How is it that we expect app stores to show anything and everything anyone submits? And how does this prevent the open web from continuing?
You seem to be upset that people like curation and are drawn to heavily curated App Stores. Meaning that such things gather large audiences.
But people can compile and run their own code on the platform. And it has actually gotten easier and cheaper — not more difficult — over time.
If I was running the Disney store, for example, I would want all my third-party products to be family friendly. It would be crazy for someone to yell "censorship!" because I was disallowing products with mature themes from being sold at my store. This is how shops work: they pick what represents their brand so that customers who like their choices can just walk in and browse their products.
Apple wants their App Store to be family friendly. They don't want apps that deal with serious or divisive political issues, they don't want apps which represent them in a bad light, and they don't want apps that are going to shock or horrify their customers.
You and I can make these decisions for ourselves. That's why it's great that we can download code from the Internet and build it for our own devices.