1. Google has to maintain both the API and the associated Hardware, that costs money. 2. Where do you draw the line between an api you verify or not? What do you do when an api you verified earlier makes a 180 turn and turns scammy? 3.?
-
-
1. Google can take a cut but have their API compete with others. 2. Its not a hard line to draw. They already draw the lines on which apps to accept to the store and the volume of apps is much higher than the volume of payment APIs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2. True, but that still doesn't solve their problem that they will get publicly crucified for every bad actor that makes it through their net. So not allowing third parties and having everything run through their own system is a precaution from that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thats the same problem they already have with apps, but the volume of apps is much smaller than that of payment APIs so why would this be a problem with payment APIs. Especially with payment APIs you can make automated tests to verify them and request the companies details.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
With payments it is a problem that is avoidable, they don't have to allow them. Apps in general are the key purpose of the platform though, so they got less of a choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They are deliberately choosing the one solution from a large set of solutions that lets them profit the most from their monopoly and control over the platform, which is scummy and should not be tolerated. Tech monopolies fucking over devs and/or consumers are not good imo.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Erm, no, if they really wanted to lock everything down and extract every cent from the android platform, they would plug sideloading, you know the solution that allows games like Fortnite to be installed without the Google playstore.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
They can't stop sideloading because Android is open source and every manufacturer builds android differently for their phone. They can however extort developers using their control over the play store.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't call it extortion though if there are alternatives to get onto the same device. Again the story would be different if they closed the devices down so you would have to absolutely go through Google play to get into the device.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's defacto extortion because 99.99% of devs don't have an option, as a dev you pretty much absolutely have to go through Google Play unless you are Epic which is a giant in the industry. They can't close the devices down like Apple so I don't get why you keep bringing that up.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, and Google goes to a lot of effort to obstruct and disadvantage third-party software sources. The process of installing and updating Fortnite requires over a dozen steps, and some scary Google warnings, totally unlike the easy installation from Google Play.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @SasLuca and
Yes, Google telling the users that they won't be liable for what apps do that don't come through their distribution platform is scarry.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @SasLuca and
I agree that it's an awful situation. However that upfront ui flow could be reduced somewhat with a dedicated framework for sideloaded apps. Eg. New App install with a different package name to the old package. Old package now reroutes to the new package.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.