Re: "will only let apps be installed via their App store and devs are expected to pay lots of £££"
> meaning the only way to accept installs from the likes of F-Droid is to either root your phone (which can break things) or allow untrusted sources.
So, your criticism is that one must do something really bad and difficult that should only be done by experts and nerds, thus _proving_ that Google is evil and uncompetitive, *OR* tick the check box provided.
> If Android REALLY were open, we'd have the option of ADDING store certificates so that other app stores can be accepted as trusted.
It only takes clicking a single checkbox if you want to trust the store. How would Google, or other certificate issuer, know if the store was to be trusted?
In fact, if you buy an Amazon device, then it does trust the Amazon app store. If you buy a Nokia/Microsoft X (Android) phone then it does trust the Microsoft X-app store. If you buy a Samsung then their store is trusted. Similarly with the many Chinese makers who use app stores, and other services, in China.
Would someone issuing a certificate implying trust be liable if there was malware in the alternate store?
The Untrusted Sources checkbox is no more nor less that what Windows has with UAC. Perhaps Microsoft should be adding certificates to Windows so that users can randomly download software and be assured that those sites can be trusted without an annoying dialog box (or turning UAC off). Perhaps you should be using UAC and lack of certification of download sites as yet further examples of Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour.
The point is that Google cannot be accused of being anti-competitive. This is because is does nothing to prevent other app stores being set up, allows competitors (eg Microsoft) to put their apps in their Play Store, and allows directly competing products.
If you want to 'prove' anti-competitive behaviour by Google then please do a comparison chart of what Google is doing compared to Microsoft and Apple, and other smartphone systems.