> If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors.
That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD.
The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.
> But Google can do any thing right? They could push an update that plays Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am.
Sure, but they are not incentivized to do that. Forcing out competitors is something they're directly incentivized to do because it makes them more money. You can't trust a company not to do what a company exists to do.
The problem is that Google (and Apple) are way too big and powerful, and their pursuit for higher profits is stifling competition, innovation, and hurting the economy.
> doesn't you argument apply to every software publisher?
Not every publisher is immune to market forces the way Google and Apple are. If Spotify started blasting Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am, they'd go out of business overnight. If Google did it, people would just put their phones in another room when they go to bed.
> Sure, but they are not incentivized to do that. Forcing out competitors is something they're directly incentivized to do because it makes them more money.
Then why even go through the motions of making life easier for app stores right now? Because of antitrust? I guess I'm just not sure why that would change later. Google will still be an antitrust target 5 years from now.
In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
> Then why even go through the motions of making life easier for app stores right now?
We can only speculate. Maybe it's a reaction to the legal issues they're facing right now, both from the DOJ investigation and the Epic lawsuit? Or maybe it's a more cynical plan to kill competitors by letting them think it's smart to invest in a competing store now, only to claw back control in the future and force them to lose customers and go out of business?
Maybe the upcoming changes don't actually make life significantly easier for third-party app stores (AFAIK they haven't shown what the changes actually are), and this is just a BS move to make them look better in the short term.
> In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
Google? Nothing. In an ideal world, tech giants wouldn't be allowed to self-regulate anymore. Google could do whatever they want, but sane and reasonable regulations would keep them in check.
But there are no regulations. This move is (most likely) a reaction to the recent lawsuits and the potential risk of future regulations. For the past 10 years they've done nothing remotely like this, and likely wouldn't have done anything if it weren't for Epic.
note that we still don't really know what exactly it is they're doing, since the blog post was vague on specifics. It could literally be nothing.
> That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
That's true even today - you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button. You can even root it and go further - much easier for Pixels - sure some apps will refuse to work on rooted devices but that's hardly Google's fault.
What are you trying to demand here - complete anarchy like PCs? I am not sure that's a good thing.
> you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button
I can because I'm a computer geek. The majority of the population wouldn't know how to or care to learn how to go through the trouble of enabling "unknown sources" and ignoring all the scary malware warnings. Without that population, the prospect of running a commercial third-party store is hopeless.
> complete anarchy like PCs?
What anarchy? Software distribution on PC is great because users can, and regularly do, go straight to the vendor's website to buy their software. There is no middle-man.
From the security side, since Android and iOS have had sandboxing built in from day one, the risk of downloading software from a random website is much lower than it is on Windows. It's not zero, but it is lower, and it's not that much riskier than downloading a random app on Google Play (which has always been filled with malware).
But lets say it's still too risky for some reason. Fine. That's what anti-virus software is for.
So you want Google to basically advertise/encourage how to install stuff from unknown sources or to enable it by default?
I am not sure that's a good thing for majority of the population. Sandboxing does nothing if you download untrusted apps and give them permission to send SMS or setup a VPN or do whole lot of damage. If you aren't a geek you are saying ok to anything any app asks.
Android actually optionally, with rightful warnings allows PC like anarchy for geeks - if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
> I am not sure that's a good thing for majority of the population. Sandboxing does nothing if you download untrusted apps and give them permission to send SMS or setup a VPN or do whole lot of damage. If you aren't a geek you are saying ok to anything any app asks.
People already say ok to anything any app asks on Google Play. That isn't a problem unique to competing app stores, it's a problem with Android's permissions UI/UX. Just look at any non-tech-savvy Android user's phone to see that "anarchy" is already the status quo.
> if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
As I said, it depends on Google's implementation of 3rd party app stores. Any platform has power over what appears on the platform. Pointing out that Google does as well is practically axiomatic.
You aren't just making an argument against google, your line if thinking would vilainize all platforms. At the same time that you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform. I fundamentally disagree. As-is, I think Android has exposure to anti-trust accusations. But an open system of allowing 3rd party app stores nullifies that. Of course they'll still have control, but the measure of abusing power isn't that you have it, it's how you use it. And Google might be smart enough to realize that their use of power until now has brought too much anti-trust scrutiny, and that needs to change. Or maybe they'll screw it up, but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad. That is a narrow view that assumes Google doesn't understand the dangerous position it's in right now.
> Any platform has power over what appears on the platform. Pointing out that Google does as well is practically axiomatic.
That's not what I'm pointing out or focusing on.
> you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform
I never said or implied that.
> but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad
I don't believe that, and have not said anything to suggest that I do.
The assumptions you are making about me or my argument to arrive at these conclusions seem to be inaccurate. I would be happy to continue this discussion, as long as you ask me to clarify something rather than attempt to arrive at your own conclusions, potentially derailing the whole conversation.
That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD.
The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.