NotPractical

Antitrust law applies to any company of massive size that engages in anticompetitive conduct, not just companies who create "open platforms" [1], otherwise there would never be any antitrust cases. An antitrust case would be your best hope under current law, but it already happened and the remedies did not include a mandate to keep allowing unrestricted sideloading indefinitely.

Anyway, you're now moving the goalpost, because you were originally talking about a case based on the premise that they engaged in fraudulent marketing, not a case based on the premise that they currently hold a monopoly. The former would never hold up in court, the latter already happened but the remedies were insufficient to stop Developer Verification.

[1] The reason Apple wasn't forced to allow third party app stores as a result of Epic Games v. Apple was not because iOS is a "closed platform"; they simply weren't found to be a monopoly in the "mobile gaming transactions" market (which does not preclude them from eventually being found a monopoly in the "mobile app distribution" market).

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Google

https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...

You keep repeating this argument, but it doesn't hold up upon critical examination.

I already replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512015

I think the reason you keep reiterating this is because once you realize that there is no legal justification to go after Google for this move under current US law, the only real solution becomes obvious: new legislation, and you really don't want that, because you know it will apply to Apple devices as well, which would be The End of the World.

If you want to see what the solution to this problem looks like, take a look at the bipartisan App Store Freedom Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...

(This is before Apple/Google lobbying efforts result in either the death of the bill or a bunch of exceptions allowing companies to do "notarization" or "developer verification".)

It's shockingly common for people to cite Twitter and Bluesky posts as evidence of what the average American of political party X or Y believes. I do not understand how they came to be so deluded.

Even if the idea originally came from the EU, the fact that Google is rolling it out worldwide would seem to indicate that they already wanted to do this, no? And regardless of whether they wanted to or not (inside the EU), it does not invalidate criticism of the move from outside of the EU.

The only solution to this problem is new legislation. The case that Google fraduently marketed Android is flimsy at best.

People buying phones by and large do not care in the slightest about "openness". Whether or not their phone supports sideloading is completely and utterly irrelevant to them.

But aside from that, it would be enermously difficult to prove that Google made claims that were unequivocally false while advertising Android. Sure, they made some vague claims about Android being an "open" platform. But they had more than enough well-compensated lawyers on their side to avoid making specific promises about specific functionality that could eventually land them in court.

Finally, even if some of the claims Google made about Android in 2015 no longer hold up in 2025, that in and of itself is not illegal. Google is allowed to change and adapt Android over time as it sees fit. Though you and I may disagree with their findings, they have internally identified systemic security threats caused by unrestricted sideloading, and have created a solution to this real-world problem (however flawed it may be). There is no reason under the current laws of the United States that they should not be allowed to make those changes (aside from perhaps general antitrust law, but that is not enough in this instance as evidenced by the outcome of Epic Games' case against Google). Perhaps they will have to change their advertising going into the future, and they can definitely no longer reuse older advertising materials promoting Android's capability for unrestricted sideloading (if those exist). But just because they advertised Android as having feature X in the past does not mean that they would break the law if they were to remove feature X in the future after they stopped running those old ads.

(Yes, it gets a little blurry in the case of software because it often automatically updates and offers no option to downgrade. But phones don't last forever. In the worst case Google could just wait ~5 years from today to implement Developer Verification.)

See also:

Apple says it may stop shipping to the EU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372515

If you enabled parental controls, then unrated apps from outside the App Store are already blocked by default. The DMA creates no additional risk here.

Are views also decreasing on channels without ads enabled? Is it possible that some endpoint that needs to be hit to register a view is being blocked by privacy-related (not ad-related) lists that adblockers use?

If the answer to both is no, maybe Google's intentionally punishing creators whose viewers use adblockers. But if the goal is to force creators to ask their viewers to stop using adblockers, then why would they not also just admit that they're doing this rather than leaving it up to speculation?

> Virtual Boy games will require the Switch Online Expansion Pack add-on

I never understood why they didn't just... sell the games individually as an option? That doesn't make the subscription itself less attractive, right? Amazon still sells music even after they started their subscription service.

The other accessories they released through this program at least had uses outside of the accompanying subscription, but this one I guess just turns into a brick when your time runs out.

I will admit it's pretty cool, though.

> A site trying to be as big as possible wants to attract everyone. But a site aiming at a particular subset of users has to attract just those—and just as importantly, repel everyone else. I've made a conscious effort to do this on HN. The graphic design is as plain as possible, and the site rules discourage dramatic link titles.

I have heard from users that the minimal graphic design here is intentional, but I did not realize that the creator of the site confirmed it (and so early on, too).

It is the courts' job to block unconstitutional or otherwise illegal laws.

I believe someone said in a previous thread that a court in an EU member state had already found this mass surveillance on citizens who are not criminal suspects to be illegal under either their constitution or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but I can't find it anymore. I am wondering why that is not sufficient to permanently block this.

Edit: This is not to say that you shouldn't resist the laws at every other level, too, because you definitely should.

I don't think that the translation feature itself can be considered OS functionality. An API providing on-demand background execution time for apps linked to connected Bluetooth devices would surely be sufficient to comply with the DMA?

As an example, when they were compelled to allow competing browser engines, they didn't open source Safari; they added a multiprocessing/JIT API to iOS (tailored and restricted by policy to browsers). Competitors (web browsers) got access to the OS features (multiprocessing/JIT) that they needed to compete with Apple's product (Safari), but they didn't get access to the product itself and still need to build their own.

In this case, competitors (device makers) might request access to the OS feature (background execution) that they need to compete with Apple's product (live translation on AirPods).

It should also be noted that such functionality only has to be provided if explicitly requested by a developer who is working on a competing product, so they don't have to develop it preemptively.

I'm not saying that this is completely fair or whatever, just that I don't think it's quite as extreme as people are making it out to be?

Article fails to mention that the study was sponsored by Apple, not just "highlighted".

I think the extrajudicial punishment he's advocating for is the wrath of the court of public opinion though? Unless I'm misreading.

> governments love centralisation of control in very few hands

Honestly, that was one of the things that shocked me about the Digital Markets Act in the EU. It gives them less power over their citizens, not more. (Of course, they also passed the Digital Services Act around the same time, and now they're looking at age verification and breaking E2EE, so I guess they figured they had to balance things out...)

They've literally censored the pirated filename and the torrent hash. Begging to be sued.

I'm starting to regret supporting software freedom. /s

To add:

> it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app

I'll assume this is completely bogus, unless you elaborate.

Also, the text of the DMA confirms that they can only restrict apps outside of the App Store if they endanger the integrity of the OS, not for any other reason. Not even for "enabling IP infringement" (which browsers would also be guilty of).

The EU does seem to take violations of the DMA seriously, and this is unambiguously a violation.

Pitiful response with no specifics, as usual.

> it just requires that they be able to justify restrictions and keep them as narrow as possible

But they haven't provided a justification for this. The least you'd expect would be a "this app violates notarization guideline x.x.x". They might have to edit the CSS on their website a little (add the .lighter-override class) but after that they could just cite 5.2.3 [1].

[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#leg...

I agree. It would be one thing if they did an independent analysis on the outcomes of each regulation and arrived at an evidence-based conclusion (and even then it would still be very difficult or impossible to achieve objectivity).

But from what I can tell, it basically boils down to "let's just read the bullet points for each one and put it on the list if they sound good", which is misleading and even dangerous. Chat Control should be on the list by those standards.

> I feel like just learning git and using it is easier than learning a new tool

I would agree if this "new tool" we're talking about wasn't just a simple wrapper over existing git commands. You can learn it in its entirety, including how it works (not just how to use it), in a matter of a half hour or less.

No, I mean inside a VM: https://www.androidauthority.com/linux-terminal-graphical-ap...

Chrome OS supported Steam through a VM as well, and it still does, if you manually install it.

The tech stack they used for Steam on Chrome OS is apparently identical to the still-supported Crostini feature ("Linux on Chrome OS"), just with a different VM image that has Steam pre-installed: https://chromeos.dev/en/posts/bringing-steam-to-chromeos#bor...

There's no indication the ChromeOS-Android merger will kill support for graphical Linux apps? Android supports graphical Linux apps as well.

Unless you want to look like a criminal, I probably wouldn't carry around two phones everywhere you go.

You can root a Chromebook if you choose to accept the risks involved. This is officially supported.

The government can solve that, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

Can you please elaborate on what your point is here? Previously you've made comments in support of opening up the Apple ecosystem, but now it seems that you're no longer in support of the idea after a sudden realization that opening up the platform to everyone means that it's also opened up to Google?

> But no need for handing access to Health to more or less dubious apps

I mean, it's been vetted by Apple, right? If they did their job then it should be fine. This isn't the Play Store you're dealing with; it's the App Store. I kinda dig the "simple utility app that does one job well" format, tbh.

Even if you aren't concerned about the possibility of "backdoored hardware" (and I am not, for one), I'm still sympathetic to the argument that giving money to Google is morally wrong because it provides financial support for their data-harvesting business model (though since you use GrapheneOS, they'll only be able to use it to harvest other users' data, of course, not yours). Buying a used Pixel doesn't support Google financially, so perhaps that's more ethical.

> During the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, Apple lawyers even cited itch.io as the kind of adult-friendly gaming platform that it wouldn't be comfortable allowing via its more family-friendly App Store.

Serious question: why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, but it becomes a huge deal when other large companies do it?