4 ms·

That article reads like propaganda for Google Store. > That's because Fortnite isn't available through Google's Play Store. Epic instead chose an unorthodox --

by zaroth 6y ago

That article reads like propaganda for Google Store. > That's because Fortnite isn't available through Google's Play Store. Epic instead chose an unorthodox -- and more dangerous -- route for the game's fans. Rather than download it through the official Google app store, players need to download the game and "sideload" the app on their Android devices instead. That Epic is allowed to do this underscores why Google's Android often gets knocked for its security chops. No wonder they ultimately folded and came back into the “protection” [racket] offered by Google Play with PR like this coming to bear.

scarface74 6y ago
Those security issues would have been rendered moot by the sandbox if they went through the Play Store. But really? That's the card you're going to play? That "every app has security issues" so this is okay?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Why would they not allow you to sandbox non-play store apps?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Everyone wants their phone to be just as open as their computer and without restrictions - you have that with Android. The minute apps are forced to be in a sandbox, you forgo “openness” and “choice”.
    - leppr 6y ago
      I don't think there's any relationship except an inverse one between user choice and app sandboxing. QubesOS, Snaps, Firejail, Sandboxie, browser tabs to some extent, restrict user-freedom in only the most technical way, with no bundled choice traps. On the contrary, a good sandbox allows users to forego human curation/proprietary malware detection services and execute any code they want.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        But once you have a sandbox, you limit what the app can do. Would the outspoken users on Android be happy if the sandbox for side loaded apps restricted functionality they wanted?
        leppr 6y ago
        Yes, the issues highlighted in the thread stem not from the technical limitations of Android sandboxing but political censorship by Google. Covid-19 isn't transmitted through apps. This is a stereotypical false dilemma fallacy, where users are artificially forced to chose between security and censorship.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And government wouldn’t try even harder to censor? The big thing in the early 90s was the government going out of its way to try to force the record labels to censor hip hop groups like NWA (F the Police) , 2 Live Crew, and Ice T (Cop Killer). Do you remember all of the moral panic about violent video games after Mortal Kombat came out?
        slavik81 6y ago
        That depends on who controls the sandbox. I certainly would like to limit what apps can do. The sandbox should give me control of the software on my device.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- zaroth 6y ago
  The way I see it, a well-funded and very popular entity tried to bypass Google’s stranglehold (and high taxes) on app distribution. Even they ultimately failed to maintain independent distribution. They probably invested quite a few engineering hours to devise a solution, as there’s a lot of code / Google services that need to be replicated. It’s unsurprising to me that there were some bugs in this code, and I think generally companies that respond to bug reports and issue patches should be commended. Where I would disagree is if you are claiming that we should be treating Google Play akin to a low-level cryptographic library in the vein of a “don’t ever roll your own” approach. Allowing independent software distribution is usually considered a positive differentiator for Android. For this to be a viable distribution channel it’s actually extremely important for large and popular entities to be using side loading in order to build recognition and trust in its use. Ideally it results in open-source sideloading frameworks and best practices that the larger community can build upon.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Are you as forgiving about security issues with Zoom?
    - zaroth 6y ago
      It’s OT but I will totally forgive Zoom for their security issues. Their CEO openly admitted they were wrong, promised to fix it, made real changes fairly quickly to better lock down default settings, have upgraded their ciphers, and made a major acquisition to build-out their security chops (Keybase) to address the larger problem of easy to use key management. Personally I’ve relied on Zoom to get meetings running quickly (without wasting precious time fighting with hard to install client software) many times on meetings where I would gladly trade ease of use for security posture. I think Zoom messed up but has shown they can admit fault and course correct. They are—as far as I’m aware—an entirely content neutral communications network that lets me pay for a service, doesn’t try to analyze and data mine my content, isn’t operating as a middleman between me and my customers, and isn’t at risk of becoming my competitor if it detects my product is becoming successful. They aren’t leveraging a monopoly position to maximize rent seeking and crushing the little guy through arbitrarily enforced content moderation policies. They aren’t exploiting cheap labor or phish a business to intercept their customers. So as far as growth-hacks go, playing some API tricks on Mac and Windows to get their client ridiculously easy to install and running in a meeting — which risked you entering a meeting without an extra prompt, or potentially provided a pivot for unsigned code.... Frankly they seem about as un-villainous as they come in terms of publicly listed tech companies or venture-backed unicorns.

by zaroth 6y ago

scarface74 6y ago

Those security issues would have been rendered moot by the sandbox if they went through the Play Store. But really? That's the card you're going to play? That "every app has security issues" so this is okay?

Aeolun 6y ago
Why would they not allow you to sandbox non-play store apps?
- scarface74 6y ago
  Everyone wants their phone to be just as open as their computer and without restrictions - you have that with Android. The minute apps are forced to be in a sandbox, you forgo “openness” and “choice”.
  - leppr 6y ago
    I don't think there's any relationship except an inverse one between user choice and app sandboxing. QubesOS, Snaps, Firejail, Sandboxie, browser tabs to some extent, restrict user-freedom in only the most technical way, with no bundled choice traps. On the contrary, a good sandbox allows users to forego human curation/proprietary malware detection services and execute any code they want.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      But once you have a sandbox, you limit what the app can do. Would the outspoken users on Android be happy if the sandbox for side loaded apps restricted functionality they wanted?
      - leppr 6y ago
        Yes, the issues highlighted in the thread stem not from the technical limitations of Android sandboxing but political censorship by Google. Covid-19 isn't transmitted through apps. This is a stereotypical false dilemma fallacy, where users are artificially forced to chose between security and censorship.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And government wouldn’t try even harder to censor? The big thing in the early 90s was the government going out of its way to try to force the record labels to censor hip hop groups like NWA (F the Police) , 2 Live Crew, and Ice T (Cop Killer). Do you remember all of the moral panic about violent video games after Mortal Kombat came out?
      - slavik81 6y ago
        That depends on who controls the sandbox. I certainly would like to limit what apps can do. The sandbox should give me control of the software on my device.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
zaroth 6y ago
The way I see it, a well-funded and very popular entity tried to bypass Google’s stranglehold (and high taxes) on app distribution. Even they ultimately failed to maintain independent distribution. They probably invested quite a few engineering hours to devise a solution, as there’s a lot of code / Google services that need to be replicated. It’s unsurprising to me that there were some bugs in this code, and I think generally companies that respond to bug reports and issue patches should be commended. Where I would disagree is if you are claiming that we should be treating Google Play akin to a low-level cryptographic library in the vein of a “don’t ever roll your own” approach. Allowing independent software distribution is usually considered a positive differentiator for Android. For this to be a viable distribution channel it’s actually extremely important for large and popular entities to be using side loading in order to build recognition and trust in its use. Ideally it results in open-source sideloading frameworks and best practices that the larger community can build upon.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Are you as forgiving about security issues with Zoom?
  - zaroth 6y ago
    It’s OT but I will totally forgive Zoom for their security issues. Their CEO openly admitted they were wrong, promised to fix it, made real changes fairly quickly to better lock down default settings, have upgraded their ciphers, and made a major acquisition to build-out their security chops (Keybase) to address the larger problem of easy to use key management. Personally I’ve relied on Zoom to get meetings running quickly (without wasting precious time fighting with hard to install client software) many times on meetings where I would gladly trade ease of use for security posture. I think Zoom messed up but has shown they can admit fault and course correct. They are—as far as I’m aware—an entirely content neutral communications network that lets me pay for a service, doesn’t try to analyze and data mine my content, isn’t operating as a middleman between me and my customers, and isn’t at risk of becoming my competitor if it detects my product is becoming successful. They aren’t leveraging a monopoly position to maximize rent seeking and crushing the little guy through arbitrarily enforced content moderation policies. They aren’t exploiting cheap labor or phish a business to intercept their customers. So as far as growth-hacks go, playing some API tricks on Mac and Windows to get their client ridiculously easy to install and running in a meeting — which risked you entering a meeting without an extra prompt, or potentially provided a pivot for unsigned code.... Frankly they seem about as un-villainous as they come in terms of publicly listed tech companies or venture-backed unicorns.