This year, a far-reaching, complex new piece of legislation comes into effect in EU: the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which represents some of the most ambitious tech policy in European history. We don’t love everything in the DMA, but some of its provisions are great, because they center the rights...
The problem is that there’s only really two ecosystems: Google and Apple. If there was more competition, maybe it would be fine if users opt-in to a closed ecosystem, but if there’s only two options, there’s a strong incentive from both parties to collude to prevent new competitors.
That said, I’m similar to you, I use GrapheneOS as well and have only owned the one Apple device (also iPod touch), and I largely avoid both ecosystems. However, going a third way definitely has significant repurcussions, as in I can’t use many apps because they require Google’s ecosystem to function.
Not sure, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t investigated either party to know for sure. But what I do see is both the App Store and Play Store using “security” as an excuse to lock apps to their respective ecosystems. So whether there’s overt collusion is anyone’s guess, but they both seem to be playing with a similar set of cards.
Oh damn, is Google moving toward not allowing apps to be installed from outside the Play Store?
Regardless, I see now how it’s a problem; if we let Apple do it, and then Google decides to too, we’re fucked, and it would then be unfair to not let Google do it since the precedent was set by allowing Apple to
They’ve had the “this app might be malware” or whatever nonsense for ages, and I think they’ve stepped it up a bit. That won’t stop power users, but it does chill average users and was a big reason Epic Games sued despite having the ability already to offer a sideloadable app.
And yeah, it’s all about precedent. Microsoft has been trying to go this route for a while as well, and every time they do, it’s always “security” as the excuse for why it needs to be that way.
The problem is that there’s only really two ecosystems: Google and Apple. If there was more competition, maybe it would be fine if users opt-in to a closed ecosystem, but if there’s only two options, there’s a strong incentive from both parties to collude to prevent new competitors.
That said, I’m similar to you, I use GrapheneOS as well and have only owned the one Apple device (also iPod touch), and I largely avoid both ecosystems. However, going a third way definitely has significant repurcussions, as in I can’t use many apps because they require Google’s ecosystem to function.
Thanks for your input! Is that what’s happening here, though?
Not sure, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t investigated either party to know for sure. But what I do see is both the App Store and Play Store using “security” as an excuse to lock apps to their respective ecosystems. So whether there’s overt collusion is anyone’s guess, but they both seem to be playing with a similar set of cards.
Oh damn, is Google moving toward not allowing apps to be installed from outside the Play Store?
Regardless, I see now how it’s a problem; if we let Apple do it, and then Google decides to too, we’re fucked, and it would then be unfair to not let Google do it since the precedent was set by allowing Apple to
They’ve had the “this app might be malware” or whatever nonsense for ages, and I think they’ve stepped it up a bit. That won’t stop power users, but it does chill average users and was a big reason Epic Games sued despite having the ability already to offer a sideloadable app.
And yeah, it’s all about precedent. Microsoft has been trying to go this route for a while as well, and every time they do, it’s always “security” as the excuse for why it needs to be that way.