If people don't like it, they are free to direct their governments to enact and enforce anti-trust laws that address these platforms.

And Google is free to use its billions of dollars of stashed away money for "lobbying".

I'm sure it's going to be a fair fight between the little guy that has a million other worries in his little life and the corporation whose business model is being threatened and therefore will have a laser like focus across years or even decades.

You're right. That's why we need stronger medicine. Anti-monopoly sentiment is rising quickly.

If people don't like a product or service then they simply shouldn't use it, no matter how many of their peers and friends do.

It's really simple and doesn't involve bringing in (literal) government guns that'll just end up controlled via regulatory capture anyway.

Be responsible for your own choices.

Laws don't protect consumers or enforce moral obligation and you know it. They serve as a facade to the population to keep society from disintegrating.

Direct boycotting of companies forces change very quickly.

I don't know it. Laws get written and enforced for lots of reasons, enforcing morality and protecting the population are among them.

The state can be very effective at breaking up monopolies, if there is the will. You'd be surprised.

I'd say Amazon is different, but Google has a monopoly in mobile operating systems worldwide (certainly in the EU), so I don't think it should be allowed to block apps that hurt its business. That seems quite anti-competitive to me. Plus, ad-blocking has been deemed legal by at least four courts in Germany, and I believe in the U.S. and Canada, too.

Also you could have used the same "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument with VOIP apps on carrier networks. And yet, most countries have passed laws against ISPs banning competing services on their networks.

In general I agree with your sentiment. I do think this is different, in a nuanced way, from the ISP bans though.

The ISPs banned them from their platform. Google and Amazon allow these apps on their platform (the Android OS), but are banning them from their app distribution channels.

Taking Google's perspective for a moment, they are not willing the facilitate distribution of apps whose sole purpose reduces their revenue.

These ad-blocker apps can still be distributed and installed outside the app store. I can download from adguard.com and sideload it onto my device.

The interesting question here is if the app stores are considered a functioning monopoly on apps. I lean toward yes.

Surely you recognize a difference between not allowing certain apps to be installed and refusing to host that app in their store?

Although, if the only place you can install software (within reason) is though their store then I think we're in a different situation.

I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices?

If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer.

I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue.

But I think it’s a fair and important question.

That's actually startling close to the GNU/FSF ethos. The whole Free Software movement is about being able to control the software that runs on your devices (and be able to fix/modify that software as well). The difference is that they don't seek to do it through legislation, but instead through advocacy.

It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading.

It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)

I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.

That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.

True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval.

Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring.

When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app.

We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app.

Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition..

I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital.

Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition.

Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.

> They're under no obligation...

Except the obligation created by their customers doing business elsewhere, of course.

Where else exactly?

There are multiple app stores available on Android, users are also free to side load apps.