6 ms·

I'm seriously not getting this POV, which I see a lot. Yes, some apps are only available in the play store, and the maker of them does not publish them anywher

I'm seriously not getting this POV, which I see a lot. Yes, some apps are only available in the play store, and the maker of them does not publish them anywhere else. How's that google's fault again? Are you mad at Twitter because Starbucks doesn't sell their coffee there? There is no vendor "duopoly" between google and apple. There are about a thousand flavors of Android, and a bunch of phone makers - and google isn't even the top Android seller. The only one I've used with a play store was for like a year in 2010. There is a technology duopoly, but the technology part has nothing to do with google. Much like there's no triopoly between windows/macos/linux. Because "Linux" is not a vendor. Linux is like "car," not like "Toyota." Windows is like "bicycle with lawnmower engine held on with duct tape." Macos is like "you're eating this absolute shit, and it does taste good"

lmm 3y ago
> Yes, some apps are only available in the play store, and the maker of them does not publish them anywhere else. How's that google's fault again? Are you mad at Twitter because Starbucks doesn't sell their coffee there? I can buy from Starbucks anonymously, or give my friend money to buy something for me. If they're calling it a "store" then that comes with an implication that you don't have to consent to being creeped on to get stuff from there. They also did a bait-and-switch where they initially touted android's openness, but then moved an increasing amount of core functionality into google play services and encouraged app makers to depend on that. > There is no vendor "duopoly" between google and apple. There are about a thousand flavors of Android, and a bunch of phone makers - and google isn't even the top Android seller. The only one I've used with a play store was for like a year in 2010. There is absolutely an app store duopoly - it's a different duopoly in China than the rest of the world, but that's a distraction. The fact that they're able to sustain their 30% cut shows how much market power they have.
aaravchen 3y ago
I corrected your analogy for you: Starbucks (Google) and McDonalds (Apple) coffee are both available and control 98% of the coffee sales, with Starbucks owning about 70% by themselves. They each make their own special cups (hardware) that can only hold their coffee and require their special nozzles to fill, but Starbucks graciously allows a number of other retailers to make and sell compatible versions of their special cups. The fill nozzles of each require a special brewing process for the coffee to fit thru the nozzles, and a special grinding process for that brewing. Both own 99.9% of the market on services, tools, and aptents for the brewing and grinding. They also have 95% market share on bean buying and importing, and only ship to their own supply chains. To help with harvesting, McDonalds offers nice tools but will only buy beans harvested with those tools and charge $99/year/worker for them. Starbucks offers theirs for free, but the tools have to be taken apart if you don't your harvested beans ending up in a Starbucks purchasing truck. Not to be outdone by the lowly coffee farmers, both companies own large coffee plantations, and Starbucks owns 30% of the total coffee-growing land in the world and leases almost all of it to any type of farmer that will pay. Resultantly, it's less profitable and more work for farmers to not sell to Starbucks or McDonalds, even though they get paid very little for their beans. Now you as a coffee drinker don't like that Starbucks is requiring you to provide 2 years of bank statements, your government ID card, birth certificate, body cam footage for the last 2 weeks, emails for the past 4 months, full text message history, and the passwords to every account you've had since you were 12 years old every time you want to buy a coffee. McDonalds is better, they only want the body cam footage, bank statements, and passwords, but you're not thrilled by that either. So you decide to find another coffee shop. You discover there are only a few, and they mostly just serve gas station drip coffee because they can't get growers to sell to them. Some try to get the grower to sell, but require the grower to also handle shipping and importing, but most want the growers to include shipping, importing, grinding, and brewing. Needless to say, not many growers are interested, especially ones that already have big name recognition among coffee drinkers. A couple enterprising companies however have figured out they can just resell the Starbucks coffee. Most of these just go buy all the types of coffees available and keep them on hand for anyone that wants them, but buyers are wary of whether they're really getting the Starbucks coffee or coffee with unknown fillers added. Only one company has decided they'll resell by offering to have a one of a dedicated team of people go buy the Starbucks for you while you watch (Aurora Store). Now Starbucks is getting angry because they specifically say you can't buy coffee for others, and they're banning the dedicated team of people from all Starbucks stores in retaliation.

lmm 3y ago

> Yes, some apps are only available in the play store, and the maker of them does not publish them anywhere else. How's that google's fault again? Are you mad at Twitter because Starbucks doesn't sell their coffee there? I can buy from Starbucks anonymously, or give my friend money to buy something for me. If they're calling it a "store" then that comes with an implication that you don't have to consent to being creeped on to get stuff from there. They also did a bait-and-switch where they initially touted android's openness, but then moved an increasing amount of core functionality into google play services and encouraged app makers to depend on that. > There is no vendor "duopoly" between google and apple. There are about a thousand flavors of Android, and a bunch of phone makers - and google isn't even the top Android seller. The only one I've used with a play store was for like a year in 2010. There is absolutely an app store duopoly - it's a different duopoly in China than the rest of the world, but that's a distraction. The fact that they're able to sustain their 30% cut shows how much market power they have.

aaravchen 3y ago

I corrected your analogy for you: Starbucks (Google) and McDonalds (Apple) coffee are both available and control 98% of the coffee sales, with Starbucks owning about 70% by themselves. They each make their own special cups (hardware) that can only hold their coffee and require their special nozzles to fill, but Starbucks graciously allows a number of other retailers to make and sell compatible versions of their special cups. The fill nozzles of each require a special brewing process for the coffee to fit thru the nozzles, and a special grinding process for that brewing. Both own 99.9% of the market on services, tools, and aptents for the brewing and grinding. They also have 95% market share on bean buying and importing, and only ship to their own supply chains. To help with harvesting, McDonalds offers nice tools but will only buy beans harvested with those tools and charge $99/year/worker for them. Starbucks offers theirs for free, but the tools have to be taken apart if you don't your harvested beans ending up in a Starbucks purchasing truck. Not to be outdone by the lowly coffee farmers, both companies own large coffee plantations, and Starbucks owns 30% of the total coffee-growing land in the world and leases almost all of it to any type of farmer that will pay. Resultantly, it's less profitable and more work for farmers to not sell to Starbucks or McDonalds, even though they get paid very little for their beans. Now you as a coffee drinker don't like that Starbucks is requiring you to provide 2 years of bank statements, your government ID card, birth certificate, body cam footage for the last 2 weeks, emails for the past 4 months, full text message history, and the passwords to every account you've had since you were 12 years old every time you want to buy a coffee. McDonalds is better, they only want the body cam footage, bank statements, and passwords, but you're not thrilled by that either. So you decide to find another coffee shop. You discover there are only a few, and they mostly just serve gas station drip coffee because they can't get growers to sell to them. Some try to get the grower to sell, but require the grower to also handle shipping and importing, but most want the growers to include shipping, importing, grinding, and brewing. Needless to say, not many growers are interested, especially ones that already have big name recognition among coffee drinkers. A couple enterprising companies however have figured out they can just resell the Starbucks coffee. Most of these just go buy all the types of coffees available and keep them on hand for anyone that wants them, but buyers are wary of whether they're really getting the Starbucks coffee or coffee with unknown fillers added. Only one company has decided they'll resell by offering to have a one of a dedicated team of people go buy the Starbucks for you while you watch (Aurora Store). Now Starbucks is getting angry because they specifically say you can't buy coffee for others, and they're banning the dedicated team of people from all Starbucks stores in retaliation.