The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.
I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."
We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.
>The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
Could've fooled me. Maybe it was a thing a decade ago when android just launched, but none of the marketing pages for vaguely recent phones has that as a selling point. At best it's a meme that android proponents repeat on hn or reddit.
We're not talking about phones, we're talking about an operating system. If those companies could port IOS to their phone, they probably would. Since the OS will be mostly the same across devices, it makes sense to market a phone based on hardware differences -- like having a higher quality camera.
I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility.
You've changed the subject. We were discussing whether one ought to use Google's term for it, or the term that's been used to describe this action since (I assume) the beginning of personal computing. Not whether Google is legally allowed to make the change.
My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.
Calling something a right is an assertion about morality; it implies that a law to the contrary would be a violation of that right.
I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition.
"I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition."
but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already
unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this
It might be illegal in the EU under the DMA. As I understand it, litigation involving Apple's equivalent is in progress, and the outcome may not be known for years.
Wrong in this context is an assertion about morality. I do think it's wrong in the context of consumer products for a vendor to attempt to override the wishes of the owner of the product outside of a few narrow exceptions. I would absolutely apply that to iOS, and I think the DMA didn't go far enough; Apple should have no ability to enforce notarization or charge fees to app developers if the device owner chooses otherwise.
I feel less strongly about game consoles because they're not as important as smartphones; they don't touch most aspects of life in modern society, and there are viable alternatives for their primary function, such as gaming on PCs. I don't like their business model and I don't own one.
all of big tech doing it for 20+ years and suddenly google isnt allowed to do "industry standard", like what we talking about here????
I know its bad for pro-sumer which is minority but consumer would get more protection which is majority so I dismiss HN audience because they are biases vs normal people
They all should be? I've never understood why gamers just accept constant blatant anti-competitive practices, going so far as to act as if "exclusives" via DRM are a good thing rather than monopolistic product tying. e.g. it's been demonstrated that a Steam Deck is technically capable of running Switch games better than a Switch, and yet you are forced to buy a Switch in order to buy the games.
It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms.
Antitrust law exists exactly to prevent companies from making their own ecosystem/walled garden that competitors cannot sell into. Product tying (forcing you to buy product B in order to buy product A) falls under that umbrella. Game console are not magical in this regard.
Lots of us have a problem with all of those things, and would like the government to enforce the law. I've never bought an Apple product, and the last game console I owned was a PS2 when I was a child.
I don't see how that's related (e.g. Android is FOSS but can use attestation for monopolization), but I do think we ought to make the law require products that contain software come with source as a consumer protection measure.
I do not get this use of the word "reality"? The reality is Ted Bundy's currently-at-large successor has the ability to shoot me with a gun. And that fact is about as relevant as what you said.
What you're doing here is resigning from a game just because of the fact there is a game, and then being condescending to other people for trying to win the game instead, as if what you're doing is something superior. This would already be very odd behaviour if this were only Monopoly or Risk, but is downright dangerous propaganda when the game is capitalism and the future of free computing is at stake.
The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.
I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."
We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.