4 ms·

> As mentioned previously, your app (APK versions 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036) causes users to download or install applications from unknown sources o

> As mentioned previously, your app (APK versions 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036) causes users to download or install applications from unknown sources outside of Google Play. Google Chrome can download APKs from sources outside of Google Play. By that logic Chrome should also be removed from the play store. Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal?

lkxijlewlf 4y ago
Will this have any implications for f-droid?
- fooqux 4y ago
  No. F-droid isn't on the play store as far as I can see. You go to their site, download the APK yourself, and install it manually. It's outside the scope of Google's Play store rules.
  - athrowaway3z 4y ago
    > and install it manually. But how would you do that? Firefox 'opening' an APK is obviously also able to update itself.
ars 4y ago
He needs to do this: "Many apps that let you download and open arbitrary files use this installation method, as it’s easier to simply hand off installation to the system Package Installer, which responds to intents to view and install user-acquired APK files. Apps that are sideloaded via browsers, mail clients, and messaging apps usually use this method, hence they’ll be subjected to Android 13’s restrictions." "Apps can use Android’s new setPackageSource() API to tell the system that the app came from a user-acquired APK via the parameters PACKAGE_SOURCE_LOCAL_FILE or PACKAGE_SOURCE_DOWNLOADED_FILE. This can be used by apps implementing the session-based package installation API to trigger the same behavior when sideloading arbitrary APK files. For example, the Files by Google app uses the session-based API to install apps even though it isn’t an app store. In order to protect users, Files by Google could use the setPackageSource() API to tell the system Package Installer when apps come from user-acquired APKs, thus subjecting those apps to Android 13’s restrictions." From: https://blog.esper.io/android-13-sideloading-restriction-harder-malware-abuse-accessibility-apis/ https://blog.esper.io/android-13-sideloading-restriction-har...
- thrtythreeforty 4y ago
  I'm very glad the PackageManager API is getting more full-featured - I always welcome parity between Play and any other app store in userland. That said, that is a really obtuse set of steps you need to go through to enable accessibility features for an app. That's the point, of course, but it is so user unfriendly that it's a little ridiculous.
Mindwipe 4y ago
> Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal? It's unlikely to meet an antitrust threshold because it's a single example of incompetence rather than policy - the Google Play store developer guidelines and agreements do permit this functionality, it's just that there is no functioning review process when people cock up. You would probably have to demonstrate that it was a systemic problem before you could make anti-trust stick. This is not legal advice. I am an idiot on the internet and I could say anything on my qualifications and you would have no idea if it were true.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  It's cold strategic calculation masquerading as an honest policy. They are boiling frogs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lkxijlewlf 4y ago

Will this have any implications for f-droid?

fooqux 4y ago
No. F-droid isn't on the play store as far as I can see. You go to their site, download the APK yourself, and install it manually. It's outside the scope of Google's Play store rules.
- athrowaway3z 4y ago
  > and install it manually. But how would you do that? Firefox 'opening' an APK is obviously also able to update itself.

ars 4y ago

He needs to do this: "Many apps that let you download and open arbitrary files use this installation method, as it’s easier to simply hand off installation to the system Package Installer, which responds to intents to view and install user-acquired APK files. Apps that are sideloaded via browsers, mail clients, and messaging apps usually use this method, hence they’ll be subjected to Android 13’s restrictions." "Apps can use Android’s new setPackageSource() API to tell the system that the app came from a user-acquired APK via the parameters PACKAGE_SOURCE_LOCAL_FILE or PACKAGE_SOURCE_DOWNLOADED_FILE. This can be used by apps implementing the session-based package installation API to trigger the same behavior when sideloading arbitrary APK files. For example, the Files by Google app uses the session-based API to install apps even though it isn’t an app store. In order to protect users, Files by Google could use the setPackageSource() API to tell the system Package Installer when apps come from user-acquired APKs, thus subjecting those apps to Android 13’s restrictions." From: https://blog.esper.io/android-13-sideloading-restriction-harder-malware-abuse-accessibility-apis/ https://blog.esper.io/android-13-sideloading-restriction-har...

thrtythreeforty 4y ago
I'm very glad the PackageManager API is getting more full-featured - I always welcome parity between Play and any other app store in userland. That said, that is a really obtuse set of steps you need to go through to enable accessibility features for an app. That's the point, of course, but it is so user unfriendly that it's a little ridiculous.

Mindwipe 4y ago

> Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal? It's unlikely to meet an antitrust threshold because it's a single example of incompetence rather than policy - the Google Play store developer guidelines and agreements do permit this functionality, it's just that there is no functioning review process when people cock up. You would probably have to demonstrate that it was a systemic problem before you could make anti-trust stick. This is not legal advice. I am an idiot on the internet and I could say anything on my qualifications and you would have no idea if it were true.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
It's cold strategic calculation masquerading as an honest policy. They are boiling frogs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]