[rubatuga]

Google has done the same with YouTube to create lock-in for content creators, just like the Play Store. My pet conspiracy theory, they're also doing the same with Chrome browser, by creating as many useless features as possible.

[ethbr0]

Chrome adding features is spray and pray monopoly.

I.e. once you pass a certain market share and have a larger dev team, wasting your competitor's time by maintaining a high feature addition pace

I'm not saying they aren't good and useful features... to someone. But the net result is that if Google adds more features, quickly, and they're adopted on the web, competitors have to spend more money keeping up, and Chrome becomes more dominant.

So when adding features is a strategic advantage, why would you limit the features you add?

[sircastor]

I don’t think it’s so malicious. I think they just see a feature they’d like in the browser, and add it.

Google appears to be built on the idea of creating a feature or a service, sharing it, making some excitement, and then moving on to the next thing. I think a lot of these concepts are just engineers making things because they can get sign off on it.

[luckylion]

> I think they just see a feature they’d like in the browser, and add it.

I'm not sure. Their official policy is that almost everything should be an add-on. Even things like "don't let random sites install search engines into my browser" should not be a setting, but should be a plugin that works around the browser to make it happen.

[ashtonkem]

Every content creator I follow seems pretty desperate to get away from YouTube. Creating a system where critical content creators are rewarded by an algorithm that requires burnout behavior continually does not seem like a long term stable business design.

[kibwen]

> Creating a system where critical content creators are rewarded by an algorithm that requires burnout behavior continually does not seem like a long term stable business design.

Sadly, history has shown that this is completely sustainable. Content creators that burn out will be replaced from among the legion of up-and-comers who are eager for their own shot at the spotlight, and are happy to sacrifice their well-being to do so. If ruthlessly exploiting youthful naivete weren't sustainable, then the games industry would have folded decades ago.

[intricatedetail]

It should be regulated. Creators for all intents and purposes are employees of YouTube and should at least be paid minimum wage, get holidays and sick pay. It's time YT gets Ubered.

[ashtonkem]

Such systems will always work much better for undifferentiated labor than specialized labor. Uber’s workers need protection because they’re so replaceable; anyone with the same class of car in the same city can replace them.

YouTube creators are irreplaceable and wildly unequal in their reach and impact. The issue here isn’t that content creators need a minimum wage, the issue here is that the algorithm needs tweaking. This is possible with regulation, but minimum wage and holiday pay won’t do it, especially since they’re not paid by the hour anyways.

YouTubers would be much better served looking at what NFL players and similar organizations do to protect players rather than what factory workers did to protect themselves, since their labor looks more like sports players rather than service workers.

[judge2020]

Again, the walled garden has an exit. But why would you leave it when you have to fend for yourself outside of the walls, and everything is given to you on a silver platter within them?

[heavyset_go]

Well, with Android's walled garden, competitors outside of it are not allowed to compete on a level playing field with the Play Store.

User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations are designed by Google and are implemented in Android.

If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...

[judge2020]

Continuing with the actual garden analogy, that's like trying to compete with the garden itself by planting your own flowers and the garden making it ugly with weeds. The point Apple and Google are making is that Google's walled garden is Android, as Apple's walled garden is iOS, and the app stores are simply features of those products, and thus to compete with them you need to compete with the entire product. And whether or not that's actually the case is currently being decided in Epic v Apple.