161–170 of 293 posts
Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores (which they already start doing). Once software is primarily distributed via these stores they will also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah-- I thought SteamOS was mostly dead, sitting on a shelf "just in case". I was wrong, and it now appears that Valve is sending the message "we're ready to do this thing at any time". Steam has something like 100 million+ active monthly users. Certainly some are casual and wouldn't make the switch, but that's a lot of home desktop market share to lose even if only half made the switch initially, and there'd be a h…
That's why Microsoft won't do this. Steam users have a big investment in games on Steam, and are quite likely to switch to SteamOS, even if not every game works perfectly, rather than buying all those games again. And that would create a big Linux customer base that game studios and hardware makers would develop for, threatening Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
They have already signaled their willingness to add 3rd party stores with their partnership with Amazon for Android Apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built. IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software. Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if…
I'm happy with what Valve is doing now, but as a whole, the fact that Steam OS is a Linux distro doesn't necessarily mean that Steam OS / Steam Deck won't become locked down in the same manner in the future. Android itself is open source and Linux-based.
From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this decision. The referenced policy is about in-store or in-app purchases , primarily of digital content, and a free donation is not "purchasing" anything. (Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
I really hope Epic wins the lawsuit against Apple and that the laws being announced in the US Senate/House get passed. I also hope the EU start pushing against this kind of stuff more. Apple and Google have too much control.
Y'all are too optimistic. I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past. The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers. They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this). Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones). Things will be a mishmash. Nobody will be actu…
It does prevent this. All apps and app stores included with the device must be disableable is in the language of the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this help? The Aurora Store is just an alternative Play Store client. If Google removes an app from the Play Store, it'll be gone from this too.
Aside from protection against profiling, it sends the message that users are aware of alternatives. Enough people doing that should in the long run discourage Google from bullying publishers that would have other means for distributing their software. I agree that it's not easy, and needs a lot of people jumping to alternative app stores before something could change, but I don't see other ways since it's clear that…
This is a perfect example of a line having to be drawn somewhere, but wherever you draw it is never going to be perfect in every case. First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least break even. They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app…
No, they don't. The moment google and apple designed their phone os to favor the official app store over 3rd party, they lost the ability to make this argument.
> They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows.
They could make the dev pay for this directly, rather then take a cut. cost per-download plus cost per-review and failed appeal could cut this down dramatically.
They also don't get to push their business decisions on to devs that want access to device users.
Google decided to make the phone favor their app store, google decided to drive more users to only use and trust their app store. Google decided to use restricted apis to do this. Google decided to have google play protect trigger virus warnings on any 3rd party installed app. They made the business decision to do those things to the phone OS to disfavor 3rd party app stores, and i think the moment they did so, they stopped having a right to run the play store at a profit or even at break even, and they definitely stopped having a right to demand a cut on all of an apps profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y'all are too optimistic. I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past. The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers. They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this). Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones). Things will be a mishmash. Nobody will be actu…
There are three major national carriers (a fourth launching soon), and an absolute glut of smaller MVNOs which offer devices on their own terms. Most of both the national carriers and the MVNOs will also allow you to bring your own device, which as long as isn't running Android, is probably not encumbered by malicious code. Even if the horrors you suggest are true, consumers would have options to get around them, whi…
Google has never restricted sideloading. Android 12 even enables sideloading further by allowing third party app stores to auto update.
AOSP exists. Third party roms exist. All of the devices sold by Google can be unlocked to install third party roms.
LineageOS doesn't exist because 'a complete and unassailable monopoly' allows them to.
The developer is asking people to optionally pay for his app. From a tax perspective, the dev would owe taxes on this income, since he is not a not-for-profit legal entity. Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop". The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-ma…
Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Microsoft operating system was on 97% of all computing devices in the year 2000, even higher if you narrow the definition to something like "home computer".
Microsoft didn't a collect a tax on every dollar made from every business distributing on Windows.