How could it be? Most Android manufacturers, including Google, allow you to use other app stores.
If anyone has an Unjust Monopoly in this space it’s Apple. (Though I think it’s unfortunately more complicated than that, as much as I’d love to see Apple forced to let other app stores on.)
The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed. So the only way to install another one, is to go out on the net and download an APK directly. When you try to install it, the system gives you a warning that it can be dangerous. Just those two hurdles are enough to ensure the vast majority of users will never leave the hurdle-less Play Store.
Surely the warning is justified though? Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable and other platforms also warn users about apps from unverified sources, so it is common within the industry. If the play store is determined to be a monopoly, and gets broken up or off, I think a warning would still be warranted.
The default install thing used to be an issue, i.e. MS Explorer, but people seem to have stopped caring since all OS’s now have pre-installed junk.
I guess the argument could be made thst the play store should allow downloading of other app stores? I’d be in favor of that, but I don’t know if the courts can force something like that.
Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable
99% of of users never get over that hurdle, which makes it unreasonable. “Monopoly” is the wrong term to use and it distracts from the issue - the better term is “Market Power”. Google has enough power to have a potentially damaging impact on the industry. With that power comes responsibility to not do any damage - that’s not just my opinion it’s also the law (not in those exact words obviously).
Also - the apps are from “unverified sources” because Google deliberately refuses to verify them. They’re happy to verify and assign a trust rating to every single webpage in the world… why are apps treated different? The simple answer is because Google makes more money by refusing to verify apps unless they share 30% of their revenue - which is basically extortion. There’s no way they’re doing enough work to justify a fee that high.
Sure, charge whatever fee you want but allow third party stores to compete fairly. In that world if they want to continue charging as much as they are now, they need to offer a hell of a lot more than developers are getting right now for their money.
And? For anyone who actually wants another app store, that’s not exactly a high bar of technical know-how. In fact, for the most part it’s the way stuff works on other platforms as well (provided you even have the option of choosing on those).
If you want to install Steam on Windows you need to download it, click through, and run the installer.
Linux may have snap etc, but to add unofficial software channels you need to manually edit things.
Apple straight out says “nope” on iOS unless you jailbreak.
The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed.
Not saying it’s much better, but my phone came with the playstore and the “Galaxy store”… now there isn’t a lot of useful stuff in the Galaxy store, but you can wager money against other players in games of solitaire, bingo and bubble pop… so there’s that at least…
In xiaomi phones there is a xiaomi store, in Samsung phones there is a galaxy store, and here in Spain if you buy a phone through a ISP, you may get another app store from said ISP (I know Orange and Vodaphone do this, Vodaphone going as far as preinstalling shitty mobile games on their phones to get a commission)
Epic and Apple have already had this battle two years ago. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. They served Apple and Google at the same time. Google removed Fortnite within hours of Apple doing so. Epic will battle Google, and if they lose here, they will likely appeal this too.
This is correct, but misses some semantics. Apple won because they argued that they controlled everything on the iPhone to give it a coherent design. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to allow 3rd parties to swap out the profitable component from underneath them.
Google on the other hand has always allowed 3rd party versions of things on Android- so Google can’t make the same argument.
(I’m not defending anything here, only summarizing the cases)
It’s a monopsony - a monopoly from the other side.
Google Play Store is not the single seller of apps to users but a single sensible buyer from developers. Of course with most apps being free of change, “buyer” and “seller” are loose terms to satisfy the definition.
Imagine how untenable Apple’s position would be if the Play Store is proven to be a monopoly.
Microsoft was considered a monopoly for including internet explorer with windows, despite the fact you could still install a 3rd party browser.
Epic already went to court for the same thing with Apple in 2021. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. Apple and Google both removed Fortnite from their respective stores within hours of each other.
It’s unlikely epic will win this battle, but if they don’t, they will likely file an appeal against Google as well.
It is difficult to see the case for this compared to Alphabet’s monopolistic hold on searches, and their extremely pervasive power to place ads.
Not really a monopoly, sadly. Still found it a dick move the first time it warned me that an apk I downloaded wasn’t from play.
“Monopoly - (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller”
Certainly a practical monopoly, if not a literal one. I would bet 99.9% of all app installs on android are through the Play Store.
Technical characteristics like Android making it hard or impossible for third-party app stores to auto-update, as well as restrictive agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers are pretty damning. Google deserves to lose based on that, however,
their devices sometimes warn that the “file might be harmful” and require settings to be changed to allow “unknown” apps
Chrome on Windows warns that a .exe download might be harmful. Chrome on Linux warns that a .deb download might be harmful. We have a long history of malware using drive-by downloads or trying to pose as non-executable file types as evidence that these features are in the user’s interests. At most, some rewording of “unknown” sources might be in order.
At most, some rewording of “unknown” sources might be in order.
On Windows and Linux (and Mac) there are ways to setup your computer to trust certain sources. You should be able to set a third party app store as a trusted source.
And yeah cut out the “unknown” bullshit and just show the name of the company after verifying their identity - which is a feature Android already has and uses all the time to check if a third party website can be trusted.
