And shareholders were originally happy with their profits
Narrator: They never were.
Said no Google exec ever.
I heard Google was a non-profit and they care about us very much.
Remember Open Handset Alliance (https://www.openhandsetalliance.com/)?
Or when it was actually possible to make an app for Android using open source tools?
Or when it was actually possible to make an app for Android using open source tools?
Is it not now? There are lots of actively-maintained apps in F-Droid, and as I understand it anything in F-Droid must at least be buildable with open source tools.
Android SDK source code is available, in theory and in theory you can build yourself. In practice binaries provided by Google come with restricting licence how you can use them while source is so scattered around weird control systems that noone knows if it's actually complete source and possible to use.
There was a project to provide FOSS builds of the SDK, but is unmaintained. https://gitlab.com/android-rebuilds/auto Debian also has android-sdk in it's repos, but 23 is the max API level now.
I don't know how F-Droid build apps today, it seems like a big problem.
I'm not sure, but F-Droid does state:
We cannot build apps requiring Non-Free build tools, including Oracle’s JDK or some pre-release toolchains.
They've been pretty consistent about their requirement that everything be open source.
I miss 2008 Google
I mean they make money syphoning personal data, they could have left everything free I guess
That's the thing with big mega corps. They could lower prices, make some products free, give more to app makers in this case - and it won't hurt a single person in their firm.
But they won't. They just want a higher green number, that's so high it's not possible to spend in a lifetime.
And you get nothing, because they won't even pay their taxes.
Hahahahaha
25% went to carriers
2008 was different. It's amazing how much power carriers had at the time.
Just because competitors do exist, doesn't mean much. example: There are competitors to Youtube, yet they raise Youtube premium prices and go after ad blockers and get away with it. I assume it's ultamately to make money back from Youtube tv price hiles from disney content such as nfl. I do hope it's not just to rack in more cash just because they can, but that's another possibility too.
If Rumble raised their prices, they would go out of business, while Youtube would not be as heavily impacted. If it's determined in court to not be a monopoly, there's some kind of illegal behavior going on pottentially and that's what they are trying to figure out in court.
Why don't people make more commercial products too compete. No one seems to do that anymore. to be clear i'm talking make their own commercial operating system, their own PC, and smartphone lineup.
Come on Duckduckgo there's your chance to shine if you're really not just secretly a part of Microsoft in disguise.
Because it is incredibly expensive and risky to compete in the service market.
Software has been giving way to service revenue for awhile. Both Android and SteamOS are based on Linux, and Android without Googlr has been used to create phones.
Hardware has notoriously thin margins, with non-flagship equipment being really cheap. Hardware margins are so thin that a lot of hardware manufacturers now rely on service providers to subsidize their work.
If you just simply make an operating system, that alone would increase competition. The thing is, people don't go to Linux when they do think of alternatives they go to mac, you need more commercial oses, that's why apple is number two on most used operating systems on PC.
If you just simply make an operating system, that alone would increase competition.
Would it? An OS by itself that doesn't have anything to run has little value. The whole reason Microsoft got its monopoly was because it became the standard for most desktop software.
I think so, the reason why Linux isn't as successful even though it's free is because it is complex. With Windows, you just buy a windows. WIth apple you just buy a Mac. with Nintendo, you just buy a Nintendo. With Linux, you gotta know how to hack your computer and you got to pick a distro. (i'm exaggerating a little on the hacking part, but that's how people see it.)
Or maybe we could get a centralised open sourced os that does not have anything to do with Linux, since that's being took over by Microsoft and other investors in the Linux foundation anyways that have been known to use Macs themselves. Just for the sake of simplicity and competition that actual works for people.
Of course they make bank on their app store. It's a monopoly.
It is not a monopoly. They have Apple as a major competitor and Google allows sideloading within their own ecosystem.
Apple is the one where a monopoly is starting to become a concern, especially as their app ecosystem is completely locked down.
Real talk: sideloading is allowed on android in the most maliciously compliant way possible.
Google restricts what other app stores can be included with devices that ship with play services
User-sideloaded app stores can't auto-update apps
Play protect will flag any app that the play store has hashes of, but was installed by another app store. (Developers cannot, for example, upload a list of valid hashes for their apps to Google to prevent false positives here, effectively making other install routes appear as malware if they're different.)
User-sideloaded app stores can’t auto-update apps
I think they've changed this in recent versions. While I disable auto-update everywhere, Neo Store (my f-droid app) has a setting for auto-update.
My phone didn't come with Google play services, I installed them myself
This is from wikipedia: "In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with a decrease in social surplus." As a side note, I find it really distasteful when people say, "It is not a monopoly," because it adds nothing to the conversation, and is almost always wrong.
And tossing a Wikipedia quote at me doesn't make what I said incorrect, either. Google allows (and has) numerous third-party app stores on their devices, some of which are completely free. The app store that Google themselves operate also has lower fees and looser restrictions than Apple's own store. Android is also an open-source platform that allows sideloading of thirdparty applications. Most device manufacturers heavily modify it to suit their needs.
Anecdotally: I have used Android phones for most of my smartphone-owning life and have recently been using iPhones for the past few years. Apple's app situation is an absolute joke. It is so incredibly expensive and locked down that the app store is almost completely useless unless you are ok with paying monthly sub fees for even the most basic of apps. Apple is literally fighting a court battle with the EU right now over their app store in which the court branded it as a monopolized service.
Google allows (and has) numerous third-party app stores on their devices,
to be clear: you don't think, that google has a monopoly on android apps?
Google allows (and has) numerous third-party app stores on their devices, some of which are completely free. The app store that Google themselves operate also has lower fees and looser restrictions than Apple’s own store. Android is also an open-source platform that allows sideloading of thirdparty applications. Most device manufacturers heavily modify it to suit their needs.
There is nothing about any of that which has anything to do with whether Google is using their market power to unilaterally charge more than they would in a fair market.
It is not a monopoly. They have Apple as a major competitor
Thank god! Where can I download the Apple App store on to my Android phone? I can't? Then it's irrelevant to this conversation around Google's monopoly on Android.
Google allows sideloading within their own ecosystem.
As @logicbomb points out, just because a ecosystem is open, doesn't mean a monopoly doesn't exist. All the other stores are pretty niche and Google controls 90%+ of the market, so by definition it is a monopoly. A monopoly on it's own isn't illegal or even bad, and we have to dig in further to determine that. As you pointed out, it's pretty clear-cut that Apple has a forced monopoly where users have to actively work against the system to load apps outside of Apple's ecosystem. While Google's case isn't as clear many have argued that Google's Android has kneecapped alternative stores like Amazon's, possibly in anti-competitive ways.
I personally love f-droid, but Google does not make it an easy process to sideload!
The fact that it is called sideloading implies the monopoly. It'd just be "installing" otherwise
Your device can't run the iPhone apps, and the Apple app store is an iPhone app
I downloaded this Lemmy client from an alternative store called IzzyOnDroid and I'm using it to type from my Android phone
Your device can’t run the iPhone apps, and the Apple app store is an iPhone app
I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment.
I downloaded this Lemmy client from an alternative store called IzzyOnDroid and I’m using it to type from my Android phone
Technically IzzyOnDroid is an f-droid repository, not the store itself.
I'm using the izzyondroid app, not the f-droid app because it's janky
The IzzyOnDroid App is an f-droid client...
Apple isn't really a major competitor when android has 80% of the market.
deleted
It has most of the paying customers/revenue though.
I don't know what the numbers are in that regard but that's quite possible.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
