Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic.
The easier and more effective solution is to simply force them to allow alternative app stores (without suppressing competition, like Google currently does). A free market tends to correct itself in the long term, so that should solve the majority of problems plaguing the mobile software industry today.
> Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic.
I don't think it's hard or unrealistic to force companies to provide realistic support. Entire industries have had this established for decades.
Imagine you're renting office space and the landlord decides you've done something wrong, clears your things out and changes the locks -- refusing to tell you what you've done or allow your business to continue to operate. This sounds extremely unrealistic because it is, in the real world you'd take them to court and sue them for losses. And there is plenty of legislation behind it to support you.
Similarly, having companies like Google become accountable like this isn't actually that hard. There just isn't any will to do so at the moment and livelihoods will continue to be destroyed in the interim.
That’s different though. There aren’t only 2 landlords in the world, so making laws that affect landlords makes sense.
But how do you design a law that corrects the bad behavior of 2 monopolists, while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)?
Forcing competition makes more sense to me. No need to get into endless debates about the risks to innovation, or government being too big, etc. Just open the gates to competition and call it a day.
If the mobile app store market goes to shit in the future, then we can start getting into the weeds of it. But for now, there’s no need for that; the answer is obvious.
> while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)
Expecting some level of support being provided, especially in a paid B2B engagement, doesn't stifle competition. If a competitor can't provide basic support, especially when they're just starting up, then it's best that that business fails.
They're essentially modelling their business plan based on Google's worst attributes. That's not competition I'd like to see develop a foothold, or the type of competition we should be encouraging, let alone structure our laws to support.
Yes, competition is better. Force them to allow other app stores on the same footing with Google's and Apple's. See how fast both suddenly find resources to deal with issues like these.
Sunlight (and competition) is the best disinfectant!
Not necessarily. In a competitive market, Google would need to fight to win over developers, otherwise their store will be lacking apps, and therefore customers.
A noisy post like OPs would actually make Google shit themselves if they didn’t have an app store monopoly. Even if it’s a single dev out of millions, the bad press would be much more costly than making things right.
The easier and more effective solution is to simply force them to allow alternative app stores (without suppressing competition, like Google currently does). A free market tends to correct itself in the long term, so that should solve the majority of problems plaguing the mobile software industry today.