If you want to sell Android apps, you are. Yes, I know Android allows installs from sources other than Play Store, but if you want to be popular, you have to be in Play Store.

I'm actually surprised/impressed with how successful that strategy has been for Google. I've always considered sideloading and alternate app stores to be an advantage for Android, but Google's store is effectively a monopoly anyway.

> If you want to sell Android apps, you are.

No one is forced to sell Android apps, therefore, no one is forced to do business with Google.

Statements like this are technically correct, but not very useful to discussion of the problem of Google and other large corporations being in control of such large pieces of widely-used infrastructure that they effectively decide what kinds of things others will create.

Well sure, they could go flip burgers instead.

The parent's comment is so infuriating: yes, you can chose something else instead of Google, but it hardly matters because all of them are more or less equally terrible. Which, I guess, only makes sense in the competitive market: way too terrible or way too pleasant entities go bust (for slightly different reasons), what's left are entities that are just "good enough", and there is not much reason for them to try and improve the quality.

So I’m going to say “yes they absolutely are”

And you’re going to argue with me on the semantic definition of “force”, ignoring the sheer power Google (and a few other tech companies) wield over the technological word, which now encompasses basically all commerce and industry to varying degrees. The smartphone market alone means you’re forced to deal with Google.

Single line pithy comments set up these situations. They’re not good communication really, in my opinion.

It is absolutely possible to make an app that doesn't support iOS or Android and runs on weird unpopular Linux smartphones, and thereby bow down to nobody.

Except your landlord when rent comes due.