3 ms·

That's already changing in Android 12, independent of this legislation: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background

• heavyset_go 5y ago
  Are user-initiated app installations on par with Google's revenue generating path for app installations via the Play Store? Do users still have to adjust arcane settings to use another app store or install an app without one? Does Google still show users scary warnings and make competitors' apps seem as if they're broken or malicious, and still say the user is protected by Play Protect despite that the Play Store itself distributes the majority of Android malware[1]? Is Google going to drop the mandate that all apps on the Play Store must use Google's billing system that gives them a 15% to 30% cut[1]? And how will Google treat apps that don't use Google's billing system as their payment method, considering how Google makes user-installed apps seem malicious? [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
  • jsnell 5y ago
    Jeroen was wondering specifically about "updates needing to go through a consent popup". That exact thing is being changed, as per the article, and in exactly the way Jeroen suggested by adding a permission. None of your questions seem to have to do with that, and you're just soapboxing on all kinds of totally unrelated perceived wrongs.
    • heavyset_go 5y ago
      They're rhetorical questions that pertain to the topic in the OP and are related to the GP. The ability to install apps in the background is related to Google's antitrust issue, but there are other problems when it comes to Android app distribution.