4 ms·

If I read the article & comments correctly, the problem is that Aptoide is/was sometimes/often used to distribute cracked apps from Google's AppStore and/or rem

• creato 8y ago
  If it was sometimes/often used to distribute cracked apps, then it was also almost certainly used to distribute apps with other added "features" (malware), in which case, the connection with play protect isn't that crazy.
  • mikejb 8y ago
    I agree, and I think that's a good reason to deploy a warning about this app(store) and educating the user about the risks. But blocking the installs entirely is a bit much, IMO.
    • vatueil 8y ago
      Google's antivirus is optional, so if a user was cognizant of the dangers of using Aptoide but still wanted to risk it couldn't they turn Play Protect off? Google and Microsoft are often criticized for malware that targets Android and Windows, respectively, but restrictions such as this render Play Protect and Windows Defender increasingly toothless in the battle against malware vectors.
  • boomboomsubban 8y ago
    A browser serves the same purpose, distributing links isn't that difficult.
• subroutine 8y ago
  It's much easier and cheaper to state that Aptoide is in violation of their ToS, and simply remove the app. As you can see here, the courts don't always rule favorably.
  • qwertay 8y ago
    I don't think Aptoide is distributed through the google play store as google doesn't allow app stores in there so if the user installed it manually to their system then google has no right to be messing with that.
    • UncleMeat 8y ago
      The large majority of malware is distributed off the app store. Should antivirus software simply ignore these apps under the assumption that users have complete knowledge of what these apps are doing?
      • mikejb 8y ago
        Not ignore - I think warning the user and educate them about the dangers is important and the right thing to do. But blocking an install of a legitimate app because it's coming from a different AppStore doesn't seem right to me.
    • subroutine 8y ago
      I mostly agree. I was simply commenting on why google would opt to remove aptoide rather than take legal action against them. fwiw tho, I still don't think this matter is settled. Perhaps google shouldnt remove aptoide, but I wouldnt have a problem with google removing pirated apps & patched games at the developers request. There are devs in this thread who are seeing their work being distributed by aptoide without permission and have little recourse. Also people are not simply using these cracked apps for private amusement; they use them to, for example, cheat in multiplayer games. If it becomes a regular occurance to come across accounts playing in god mode, this can harm a dev's entire ecosystems and erode long-term trust. So i think google should at least have the leeway, at the developer's request, to brick a pirated app. Or perhaps less controversially, google could block the pirated app from using any of their web/cloud services. Is that too harsh? What do you think?
      • qwertay 8y ago
        I understand why google would want to do this and why developers would want to do this but this is MY personal device. It's not googles job to police what I install on my own device. Sure, show a warning that the app I am installing is potentially unsafe but I should have the final say over anything that happens on my device. Too often I see people using the excuse that tech companies lock us out of our own things for their own protection. I saw a comment saying apple is right to block people from repairing things themself because a bad repair could get sold on ebay and then someone buys it and thinks poorly of apple. This in my opinion is completely ridiculous how we let the idea of personal ownership go out the window so Apple or Google can make a few more $ out of you by having full control over what you can do.