Comment by Palmik
12 hours ago
Disabling the ability to install arbitrary apps, like ReVanced, etc. benefits other parts of Alphabet.
In general, making anti consumer decisions is also easier when you know you can fall back on income from other units.
Then why does Google make so few anti-consumer decisions? I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two.
Apple only allows software on their macbooks and mac mini, and every release of MacOS it's more locked down. Everything else, from iPhone to the watch, is 100% locked down. Likewise, every version of Windows tries, again and again and again, to lock down programs that can be run. People absolutely don't accept it, but they do try (remember when they tried to bury the ability to run unverified apps behind a price hike?)
I'd at least give it a shot to simply appeal to Google on the justification they give. After all, the blogpost ... It is very strange for Google to do what they do in that blogpost, don't you think?
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
"In Brazil, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees ..."
"Indonesia's Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs praising it for providing a “balanced approach” that ..."
"Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society sees it as a “positive and proactive measure” that aligns ..."
"Developer’s Alliance have called this a “critical step” for ..."
And it's easy to come up with other government requirements, like the DMA (yes, ironically) and ChatControl that require vendors are able to disable apps.
Clearly there is more than a little government pressure on Google to do this, including US and EU lobby groups (Developer's Alliance). Clearly Google is unwilling or unable to resist government pressure to allow governments to control which apps get to run ... Has anyone even asked these groups why they push for this?
> I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two.
I'm not sure I agree, particularly with respect to their core businesses. Like Google basically own all parts of the ad stack and use that dominance to compete unfairly against basically everyone else, causing them to appear to be a better service. There was even an anti-trust case about it (up for sentencing at the moment, here's hoping for a breakup).
Facebook have certainly done a bunch of nefarious stuff, but Google is just a more useful product to the people who come here (and I agree with this), so they get more of a pass.
Ads.