• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.

    • guyrocket@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not the world’s most elite hacker, but I know a thing or two and it took me a long time to get F-Droid going on my Android and even longer to figure out how to side load apps and where to get the files for side loading.

      It can be done but I’d guess 99% of people out there have never and will never do these 2 things.

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Android makes you double confirm every installation on F-Droid. If you want to install something you have to tap to download, then tap again to actually install the software. Updating apps is incredibly annoying.

        The google store doesn’t do this. They allow sideloading, but they do a lot to discourage it.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it possible that alternatives are not widely used because most people don’t want to use alternatives in the first place?

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.