• mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    This is the clearest and most sensible explanation of the situation, but I’m still not sure what’s meant by “opening the app store”. The reality is apps can be sideloaded and distributed freely on Android, even unrooted. Sure, Google requires OEMs to push Google services and tracking, and that’s evil and horrible and nasty, but do they actually force that onto app developers as well?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Perhaps they mean allowing android OEMs to ship with the play store without having to agree to all the other Google requirements.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Edit: Sorry! I misread your comment at first. Yeah, now that you say that, that makes the most sense.

        But from the standpoint of anti-competitivity and Android vs iOS with Apple…

        One’s behavior is denying access to their app store without agreeing to a set of device restrictions, but everything on the app store is available without the app store at developer discretion.

        The other is an app store which MUST be installed, and is in fact the ONLY way to get software for the device.

        One is CLEARLY more anti-competitive than the other, and yet the one that’s LESS problematic is the one that gets court action. It’s a joke.