Can confirm, I just pulled up Epic Games Store from within the MS Store lol
And on top of that, this isn’t some startup who has to depend on every dollar, even if you’re right @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works this is fucking Google with a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR market cap they can lose some revenue to make room for some competition even if it’s a tad unfair.
For example, that whole litmus test with the three questions to determine if something is art or pornographic or obscene was borne out of a legal precedent.
So something similar could come out of this, where it’s only applicable if the company in question is X market cap and controlling Y percentage of the market segment or whatever. It doesn’t have to nor should be an all or nothing kinda thing
I suppose that’s fair, I’m just concerned that smaller orgs will be caught in the crosshairs, while larger, better funded orgs find the loopholes. In general, my opinion is that the simpler the rules are, the less likely for your average small org to get screwed, because they’re playing by the same, simple rules as the larger orgs.
In this case, if I create an Android competitor and my income stream depends on revenue from my app store, would I be expected to support the Play Store if it can run it? I think Google would have a valid argument here if they’re forced to support my store on their platform. Or maybe I can start w/o it, but if I get past a certain amount of sales, I would have to, which could mean that I still get screwed once I hit that threshold.
So I’m skeptical and would need to see the law first. I just think, in general, we shouldn’t be making policy as a knee-jerk reaction to orgs we don’t like. For example, I think the TikTok ban is dangerous precedent, despite loathing TikTok.
Can confirm, I just pulled up Epic Games Store from within the MS Store lol
And on top of that, this isn’t some startup who has to depend on every dollar, even if you’re right @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works this is fucking Google with a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR market cap they can lose some revenue to make room for some competition even if it’s a tad unfair.
I’m not shedding any tears for Google, but we shouldn’t be doing things just because we don’t like the person or group being impacted.
I absolutely hate Google and have spent a lot of time de-Googling my life. But when it comes to legal precedent, I think we should be very careful.
True, but legal precedents can be nuanced
For example, that whole litmus test with the three questions to determine if something is art or pornographic or obscene was borne out of a legal precedent.
So something similar could come out of this, where it’s only applicable if the company in question is X market cap and controlling Y percentage of the market segment or whatever. It doesn’t have to nor should be an all or nothing kinda thing
I suppose that’s fair, I’m just concerned that smaller orgs will be caught in the crosshairs, while larger, better funded orgs find the loopholes. In general, my opinion is that the simpler the rules are, the less likely for your average small org to get screwed, because they’re playing by the same, simple rules as the larger orgs.
In this case, if I create an Android competitor and my income stream depends on revenue from my app store, would I be expected to support the Play Store if it can run it? I think Google would have a valid argument here if they’re forced to support my store on their platform. Or maybe I can start w/o it, but if I get past a certain amount of sales, I would have to, which could mean that I still get screwed once I hit that threshold.
So I’m skeptical and would need to see the law first. I just think, in general, we shouldn’t be making policy as a knee-jerk reaction to orgs we don’t like. For example, I think the TikTok ban is dangerous precedent, despite loathing TikTok.