Hacker News Reader

Comment by brainwad | Hacker News Reader

The "convoluted" way is/was the default in the absence of a monopolist app store. Before centralised app stores, users downloaded or bought boxed software ad-hoc and installed it on their computers from installation archives, just like you can install apps from APK files on Android. If you banned Google from preloading their app store, isn't that what we would revert to?

View on HN

The goal is not to prevent a Google monopoly. The goal is to have competition to prevent Google abusing its monopoly to lock down users.

There is Samsung Galaxy store.There is Xiaomi store.There was Amazon app store which failed to gain traction as it was not pre-installed but had decent number of apps. This is even before we get to open stores like F-droid.

Now their viability is a question in the long term, if Google has complete discretion over what is allowed.

> There was Amazon app store which failed to gain traction

I also heard that dev's couldn't remove apps they, for whatever reason, no longer supported. Even if the developers abandoned Amazon's app store entirely, the old bitrotted apps would still be there. The 1-star reviews would pile up, biasing users against them on other platforms.

Google doesn't have complete discretion. On Samsung phones, Samsung's discretion overrides Google's. On Xiaomi phones, Xiaomi's discretion overrides Google's.

Not really. Google sets strict boundaries for smartphone brands on what they can do software-wise. For instance, iirc, shipping the phone primarily with a non-Google alternative ROM means you won't get any play services on them, even if you want to have a secondary version with a standard Google ROM.

Google has essentially full control. Because they own security updates. Because banking apps already now often do not work without Google services. Etc. Etc.

It is a monopoly (regarding Android app developers), and is increasingly exploiting that to cash in.

Actually, the phone doesn't have play services if the vendor doesn't install play services. If the vendor installs play services then it has play services.

Google must allow them to install Play Services.

They can just do it.

They already have agreements for it anyway.

> For instance, iirc, shipping the phone primarily with a non-Google alternative ROM means you won't get any play services on them, even if you want to have a secondary version with a standard Google ROM.

Is this wrong? Sure they have agreements but does it include "don't sell phones with alternative ROMs"? It's licensed software and I don't think the phone makers want to end up on the wrong side of a Google lawsuit.

They can just ship it under a shell company

On my Nokia (featurephone) you don't need to install apps, you just run them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com