7 ms·

No mention of the other part of this announcement [1]: "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year’s Android release) to make it even easier for people

No mention of the other part of this announcement [1]: "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year’s Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices" [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-to-developer-feedback-to.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...

ineedasername 6y ago
Yeah, I see both moves as being part of a careful dance around pending anti-trust issues. They're about to force holdouts to use their IAP system, which would be bad optics from an anti-trust point of view. However, if at the same time they make 3rd part app stores more viable they have a strong defense of "Look developers can sell their apps in other places on Android but if they want to sell through us, these are the terms." If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bogwog 6y ago
  > If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing. It will better, but it’s hardly “good”. It would still mean that Google gets to decide exactly which rights and protections their competitors should have on Android. It should be the other way around: government regulators (to protect the interests of consumers and the health of the free market) should decide how much power Google has over its competitors.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    That depends on how they implement 3rd party app stores. If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors. I'm not sure government regulation needs to enter the picture unless courts decide there's an anti-trust issue, which open 3rd part app stores might make less likely. For Android, at least. Good still would face anti trust problems in other areas.
    - bogwog 6y ago
      > If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors. That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions. Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD. The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.
      - blinkingled 6y ago
        > That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions. That's true even today - you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button. You can even root it and go further - much easier for Pixels - sure some apps will refuse to work on rooted devices but that's hardly Google's fault. What are you trying to demand here - complete anarchy like PCs? I am not sure that's a good thing.
        bogwog 6y ago
        > you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button I can because I'm a computer geek. The majority of the population wouldn't know how to or care to learn how to go through the trouble of enabling "unknown sources" and ignoring all the scary malware warnings. Without that population, the prospect of running a commercial third-party store is hopeless. > complete anarchy like PCs? What anarchy? Software distribution on PC is great because users can, and regularly do, go straight to the vendor's website to buy their software. There is no middle-man. From the security side, since Android and iOS have had sandboxing built in from day one, the risk of downloading software from a random website is much lower than it is on Windows. It's not zero, but it is lower, and it's not that much riskier than downloading a random app on Google Play (which has always been filled with malware). But lets say it's still too risky for some reason. Fine. That's what anti-virus software is for.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Anti-trust, ultimately, is not really about optics. Proving a "trust" is a pretty arcane affair... and fairly tangential to actual monopoly issues. In any case, available and viable are two different things. I doubt that they'd intentionally make them viable.
michaelmrose 6y ago
A salient point is that whereas the requirement to use the billing system will be phased in at once any benefits rolled out to users as part of android 12 will take 4 years reach 80% of users. ndroid 9 released more than 2 years ago and is now and 52% of users are now on 9 or later whereas more like 80% are at least on 7 which was released 4 years ago. https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions
- riquito 6y ago
  Android version 10 has better update tracks than previous versions (project Treble benefits, landed in Android 9), and it keeps getting better, Android 12 should take less to reach the same user base
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    10 took a year to reach 25%. It's too early to say anything about the uptake of 11 let alone 12 which doesn't exist. 80% uptake for a new version in 2 years would represent a stunning success. In that happy scenario your billing change still hits 2 years before most app customers have any chance to benefit from alternative stores ensuring that everyone pretty much has to switch over or die. Pragmatically if I was google I would SAY I am making it easier for users to do business with someone else while making it as daunting as possible to actually do so in order to pressure vendors to at best offer both their wares for sale on both stores if they want to actually have customers. Your play store policy can then forbid say offering your goods for sale at a lower price elsewhere or advertising the existence of an alternative version in app on the play store version. As long as you keep it available on the play store most users will check their first and you can keep the revenue in house without strictly forbidding competition.
  - kuschku 6y ago
    And yet the OG Pixel hasn’t gotten any updates in a year now.
    - fallennode 6y ago
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
I think even android 10 has made improvements w.r.t third party stores, I'm able to seamlessly update from Fdroid just like Playstore which wasn't possible in the earlier iterations.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  I still need to click update and then install. Is there a setting to let it update automatically? Or can you describe what's changed for you from before?
  - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
    Sorry, I seem to be having Privileged Extension on my ROM[1]. But if you have unlocked boot-loader with custom recovery, you can flash the OTA to enable it as well. [1]https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/#how-do-i-install-it-on-my-device https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/#how-do-i-ins...
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      Thanks!
mtgx 6y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. What does "easier" even mean? That it requires 4 steps instead of 5?

ineedasername 6y ago

Yeah, I see both moves as being part of a careful dance around pending anti-trust issues. They're about to force holdouts to use their IAP system, which would be bad optics from an anti-trust point of view. However, if at the same time they make 3rd part app stores more viable they have a strong defense of "Look developers can sell their apps in other places on Android but if they want to sell through us, these are the terms." If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bogwog 6y ago
> If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing. It will better, but it’s hardly “good”. It would still mean that Google gets to decide exactly which rights and protections their competitors should have on Android. It should be the other way around: government regulators (to protect the interests of consumers and the health of the free market) should decide how much power Google has over its competitors.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  That depends on how they implement 3rd party app stores. If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors. I'm not sure government regulation needs to enter the picture unless courts decide there's an anti-trust issue, which open 3rd part app stores might make less likely. For Android, at least. Good still would face anti trust problems in other areas.
  - bogwog 6y ago
    > If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors. That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions. Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD. The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.
    - blinkingled 6y ago
      > That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions. That's true even today - you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button. You can even root it and go further - much easier for Pixels - sure some apps will refuse to work on rooted devices but that's hardly Google's fault. What are you trying to demand here - complete anarchy like PCs? I am not sure that's a good thing.
      - bogwog 6y ago
        > you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button I can because I'm a computer geek. The majority of the population wouldn't know how to or care to learn how to go through the trouble of enabling "unknown sources" and ignoring all the scary malware warnings. Without that population, the prospect of running a commercial third-party store is hopeless. > complete anarchy like PCs? What anarchy? Software distribution on PC is great because users can, and regularly do, go straight to the vendor's website to buy their software. There is no middle-man. From the security side, since Android and iOS have had sandboxing built in from day one, the risk of downloading software from a random website is much lower than it is on Windows. It's not zero, but it is lower, and it's not that much riskier than downloading a random app on Google Play (which has always been filled with malware). But lets say it's still too risky for some reason. Fine. That's what anti-virus software is for.
dalbasal 6y ago
Anti-trust, ultimately, is not really about optics. Proving a "trust" is a pretty arcane affair... and fairly tangential to actual monopoly issues. In any case, available and viable are two different things. I doubt that they'd intentionally make them viable.

michaelmrose 6y ago

A salient point is that whereas the requirement to use the billing system will be phased in at once any benefits rolled out to users as part of android 12 will take 4 years reach 80% of users. ndroid 9 released more than 2 years ago and is now and 52% of users are now on 9 or later whereas more like 80% are at least on 7 which was released 4 years ago. https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions

riquito 6y ago
Android version 10 has better update tracks than previous versions (project Treble benefits, landed in Android 9), and it keeps getting better, Android 12 should take less to reach the same user base
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  10 took a year to reach 25%. It's too early to say anything about the uptake of 11 let alone 12 which doesn't exist. 80% uptake for a new version in 2 years would represent a stunning success. In that happy scenario your billing change still hits 2 years before most app customers have any chance to benefit from alternative stores ensuring that everyone pretty much has to switch over or die. Pragmatically if I was google I would SAY I am making it easier for users to do business with someone else while making it as daunting as possible to actually do so in order to pressure vendors to at best offer both their wares for sale on both stores if they want to actually have customers. Your play store policy can then forbid say offering your goods for sale at a lower price elsewhere or advertising the existence of an alternative version in app on the play store version. As long as you keep it available on the play store most users will check their first and you can keep the revenue in house without strictly forbidding competition.
- kuschku 6y ago
  And yet the OG Pixel hasn’t gotten any updates in a year now.
  - fallennode 6y ago

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

I think even android 10 has made improvements w.r.t third party stores, I'm able to seamlessly update from Fdroid just like Playstore which wasn't possible in the earlier iterations.

jimktrains2 6y ago
I still need to click update and then install. Is there a setting to let it update automatically? Or can you describe what's changed for you from before?
- Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  Sorry, I seem to be having Privileged Extension on my ROM[1]. But if you have unlocked boot-loader with custom recovery, you can flash the OTA to enable it as well. [1]https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/#how-do-i-install-it-on-my-device https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/#how-do-i-ins...
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    Thanks!

mtgx 6y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. What does "easier" even mean? That it requires 4 steps instead of 5?