While I don't agree with the author's point, I do agree very much that it should totally be fine to force Google and Apple to allow multiple stores that are selected by the user.

Furthermore, there is plenty of precedence for this solution, as this is pretty much exactly the approach government took when Microsoft demanded IE be the primary/main browser on Windows.

Realistically when you buy a phone you have a choice between two storefronts-- what are these other phones with no storefront you're referring to? Surely you can't be presenting conventional flip phones as an alternative here.

Blackberry now produces Android phones and the Windows phone is defunct. That just leaves the myriad of fly-by-night Kickstarter phones that wouldn't be able to run these apps in the first place.

So i'm lost though, is the implication that, because it's difficult to buy comparable phones that Google should offer their infra for free? At what point does Google have a right to make decisions on their own infra? If they're hosting your app they don't get a say in what they host?

And again, i already said i think you should have a right to run what you want on your phone. But most of the comments here seem to want to dictate what Google does with its own infra. That they don't get a choice in this.

There are lots of phones, but realistically you're picking between two ecosystems, Android / iOS. My grandmother isn't going to buy a Fairphone.

I think Playstations are different from smartphones / ISPs. You can live a normal life without a console, but you really can't without a smartphone or internet access. This technology is no longer optional.

I can agree with that, but i don't see why that has _anything_ to do with Google hosting your code for free.

The argument of Google not having the right to dictate terms of their infra seems completely unfounded to me. Why aren't we arguing for a more open Phone? Google demanding money for their own infra is not the issue.

False dilemma.

Google does not restrict one from sideloading another app store of choice. One can install FDroid, Humble Bundle, Epic Store, etc... So whether or not one is aware of a choice doesn't mean you can use the hypothetical of "no option to choose on first boot" as a loophole for violating the TOS of a different service.

One can if one knows alternative stores exist.

What I'd like to see is the solution Microsoft was forced to implement w/r to giving users a choice about browsers.

That would actually be a really good solution

And that wasnt a good enough argument for microsoft bundling internet explorer and they got the anti-trust hammer on their asses.

You need root to get the same background update functionality in FDroid though. Otherwise you have to click install for each update.

If you're able to sideload Fdroid, I think clicking to update ranks among the least difficult things you can do.

Difficulty isn't the issue - for every app that has an update you have to click it, then approve the install. On my phone there's a significant wait inbetween each step. It's a hassle.

I wouldn't turn on automatic updates anyway but I'd love to be able to select multiple items and give a single confirmation to update.

I have found that f-droid click updates are very finicky and unreliable. They eventually work, but failed updates and repeat and phantom update notifications are the norm.

It's fine for me but I don't think the average consumer would ever tolerate it.