There's no law against a more democratic way to implement the broker either but it requires interesting methods of coordination and/or decision making that doesn't seem to exist yet?
Seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to compare that statement to not starting a business because the economy is unfair. People indeed don't start businesses when the bureaucratic or tax overhead outweighs the financial benefit, but nobody loses sleep over an individual's hypothetical missed opportunity to learn a new skill but them. Doesn't matter to the platform owners unless it also stops being profitable, so it's their job to maintain the profitability for their ecosystem despite whatever barriers they put up.
It's not enough to not have a law against it, we need to have and enforce laws requiring it.
Developers are businesses and the economics need to work. For that, safety and security is much more important than openness.
Meanwhile, you're not looking at those who left, or those who decided to never enter a broken market dominated by players convicted of monopolistic practices.
This seems much more intuitive than a hypothesis where somehow people would prefer to enter a closed market over a fair and open market with no barriers to entry.
Remember, monopolists succeed because they are distorting the market, not because they are in fact the most efficient competitor.
Before the App Store, the picture was mostly a disaster of security, reliability and quality. There was no trust and so people didn't bother parting with their credit card information to buy software...especially not on their phone.
Apple's App Store model dramatically grew the pie because it was one of the few platforms that people were willing to actually transact confidently on and trusted. This is why millions of developers flocked to the platform. This is also why Apple has traditionally maintained an iron grip on it; it was beneficial for everyone involved.
Over time, they are being proven right as more open platforms realize that openness at the expense of trust doesn't work for the masses.
Once that happened, they gradually tried the idea with other disabled children, eventually progressing to deceiving the parents to get the permission. Then it got extended to teenagers and eventually adults, including disabled war veterans. Then there was a backlash and it stopped for a while. But it reappeared eventually, this time on an industrialized scale - the final solution. Disabilities were not the limit anymore. Arguably the worst genocide in human history started with the reluctant murder of a 5 month old infant, just 6 years before reaching its peak at the end of the war.
This is the classic example of a slippery slope. One hesitant misstep is the beginning. But as they realize its benefits (to them), they double down and gradually expand the scope until nothing is exempted. The consumer electronics industry and the software industry are certainly no exceptions to this. Is it too dramatic and hyperbolic to compare them to the Nazis? Admittedly, a bit. But perhaps it's not a bad idea to shame them like that, because clearly nothing else is working (with all due respects to the victims of the original). And it's not like they hesitate to shame us when it suits them.
[1] Gerhard Herbert Kretschmar (20 February 1939 – 25 July 1939): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar
Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. Everyone who even glances near this decision should feel overwhelming shame. If you have a shred of political power to fight this internally, you are a failure to yourself, your customers, and the world if you choose to stay silent. They'll read comments like these and think "we're right, we're being brave", because they have convinced themselves that there is bravery in wielding overwhelming power against their users.
I don't know if I got this wrong, but the 'slippery slope' argument by itself never appeared to be a logical fallacy to me. There are numerous valid examples of it, and that's the context of its use in my previous reply. There certainly is a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but I thought it meant that you are misapplying/misusing the slippery slope argument where it isn't valid or doesn't apply.
> Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable.
I was going to apply the Nazi label on them everyone else who use such sleazy tactics. I hesitated because a lot of people are still emotional about the holocaust (it has been 80 years) and object to equating anything with Nazism. But I sometimes wonder if the objection is meant only to silence the critics. While their actions haven't yet reached the magnitude of atrocities committed by the Nazis, their actions certainly are consistent with the Nazi tactics. Besides, it's not as if they had any qualms labeling ordinary people 'Pirates' for sharing media. Therefore I feel it's quite appropriate to apply to them and promote the label of 'Supply Side Nazis'.
While what the Nazis did was extremely barbaric, I feel that people gate keep their references too much - especially when talking about their tactics and methods, rather than the magnitude of their cruelty. For example, you don't have to be Joseph Goebbels or someone as vicious as him to follow his tactics. And I don't find an issue in invoking his reference if someone does this.
It worked because the majority of German doctors were full on board but there were talks of that way before nazi got in power.
I believe even in the USA there was program like sterilization of « degenerates » and « negro » At these times.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-sterilisation-program-tri...
(Édit : After checking the source, these programs went on from 1929 so 4 years before nazi were elected, and lasted until 1974 !!!)
I’m not sure all of that is in any way comparable to a company abusing its monopolistic position to enforce rules that will benefit it.
so much extra work involved that isn't building the app.
I worry how this will affect fdroid etc.
Just look up how to skip the "OOTB (out of the box) experience" and you can still bypass having to set up a cloud account on Windows 11 and can just set up a local account like normal. :)
These sorts of hurdles exist to push more and more users to their favorite workflow until the dissenting voice is too feeble to notice when they finally pull the plug on the straightforward method. The intent is certainly there, since they are quite evidently boiling the frog. Just wait for the fine day when you wake up in the morning to see an HN story just like this one about Windows login as well.
Doesnt this pretty much describe the entirety of the Linux experience though?
Setting things up was much more complicated as well. But I stuck it out, still hate Windows, but I've gotten a bit used to it.
> But there is no way an average system user is going to have the patience or often the skill necessary to do it.
It's like two commands. Super easy.
So you tolerate it. Matches what I felt. But it was more the stuff I couldn't control - like the timing of the updates and the incessant ads.
> It's like two commands. Super easy.
For you, yes. But problem for the average user is the patience required to figure it out. Also, I think the edition I used didn't have that option at all. Because I vaguely remember searching for a solution and not finding one that worked for me. Whatever it was, it will soon be like that for more or less everyone.
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/microsoft-elim...
It's still possible to set up using only a local account, but who knows for how long.
Have a login. Pin features to a login. Mandate a login but w/ backdoor. Close the back door. "It's a backdoor, why not use the front door?"
But I agree about the trend. Microsoft will probably block this workaround eventually.