It’s because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.
You can’t have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed, or notifications won’t work.
The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.
Apple doesn’t do this. Yes, Apple’s system is more locked down than Google’s (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is. Apple has not forced Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, Sony, etc to do anything. They are only doing things of their own accord, on their own devices.
What Apple is doing is the same as what the games consoles do. You buy a Sony console, it has Sony software, Sony’s storefront, Sony-sanctioned games. It’s an ecosystem they’re putting on their own product, as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google’s ecosystem, because Google knows they have no realistic alternative. That’s why one is abuse of market dominance and the other isn’t.
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?
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.
It’s because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.
You can’t have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed, or notifications won’t work.
The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.
Apple doesn’t do this. Yes, Apple’s system is more locked down than Google’s (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is. Apple has not forced Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, Sony, etc to do anything. They are only doing things of their own accord, on their own devices.
What Apple is doing is the same as what the games consoles do. You buy a Sony console, it has Sony software, Sony’s storefront, Sony-sanctioned games. It’s an ecosystem they’re putting on their own product, as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google’s ecosystem, because Google knows they have no realistic alternative. That’s why one is abuse of market dominance and the other isn’t.
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?
Perhaps they mean allowing android OEMs to ship with the play store without having to agree to all the other Google requirements.
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.
There’s that nuance again. Seems to not be very popular around here. Good point though. Well said.