this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
246 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
69999 readers
4715 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That both may be true and anticompetitive at the same time. Google cloud services apps certainly aren't randomly getting blocked or going through the same system. Google has steadfastly refused to reply to them or consider their needs.
Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, and may have slightly altered guidelines depending on the app, but the most consequential difference is that they have much more ability to access real support. I just don't think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive, this is better explained by incompetence and the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly implemented policy.
I get what you're saying, but giving yourself a fast lane in other business areas is an explicit choice to be anticompetitive. That decision on its own is inherently malicious. It doesn't allow you to then say the consequences of that decision are neutral because you didn't single out this specific competitor to block (or at least there's no evidence you did). This is frankly a slam dunk case in the EU that will result in heavy fines for Google.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it's right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.
In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like
MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGEfor untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and "heavily fined" by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.Sin of omission?