6 ms·
I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said
by e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything.
Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThird party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.
- rpgwaiter 3y agoAuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store It should all totally be open though
- xethos 3y agoBy that measure, F-Droid is very close in that both have the majority of apps some people use (Aurora for you, F-Droid for me). Neither can compete with the Play store though, as only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background without user interaction (without root). For that matter, only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction. That sounds horrible. Why can a store decide to delete an app with no prior notice? But it does seem Google has given more freedom to other apps to install apps. I guess it comes down to if that's still too many clicks or too fear mongering to count as "competitive".
- Psychotherapist 3y agoIn my experience Google Play Protect can be disabled, and shows a warning an app might be "Harmful" and sometimes prompts to Uninstall or Ignore the warning, afaik no unprompted uninstalls
- ayewo 3y agoIt’s a security feature. They’ve had this feature for more than a decade [1]. It allows them to remotely remove any malicious app from Android devices without any user intervention. 1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2752902/google-remotely-removes-android-apps.amp.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2752902/google-remotel...
- mminer237 3y agoWorse than that, I've had it unilaterally block legitimate third-party apps I've installed from F-Droid. Then since I've disabled it, it constantly nags me to re-enable it so it can re-delete my third-party apps. If you want to talk about anti-competitive, Play "Protect" should be where you start.
- noisem4ker 3y ago> only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background Not anymore, since Android 12 (2021). https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
- xethos 3y agoYou're right! I thought I'd heard something about that, but couldn't quite remember :) From your linked article though: > in response to mounting pressure from Epic Games and government regulators Just because it came out before the judgement doesn't mean it wasn't because of the court case. And frankly, needing to be sued to do the not-a-monopoly thing isn't exactly a great look. Maybe I'm just grouchy because I'll never get to use it though - BlackBerry stopped making handsets, so I'm using either the last great physical keyboard (subjective, but true IMO) while being "stuck" on Android 8.1, or GNU+Linux à la Pinephone Pro.
- harrygeez 3y agoI don't fully understand. Are these functionalities baked into Android that only allow Play Store to use it?
- bogwog 3y agoPretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has. That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.
- LoganDark 3y agoSpecifically GMS runs as a "privileged app" (that's what priv-apps stands for) which can declare access to permissions in the manifest that non-privileged apps can't even ask for.
- jacooper 3y ago> That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction. Important to note this has changed starting with android 12, now you just need accept installing the app, and the source can update the app without interaction. Droidify (third party fdroid client) supports it, among others like Aurora store.
- jacooper 3y ago
- dredmorbius 3y agoAFAIU Aurora isn't an alternate store, but an alternate front-end to the Google Play Store. That is, the only apps available through Aurora are those on Google Play, and if Google's rejected an app, then you won't be able to install it via Aurora. By contrast, F-Droid is an alternative front-end and app store, with apps available which aren't included in Google Play (for example, Termux). (I use both Aurora and F-Droid on an Onyx Android device.)
- DeathArrow 3y agoYou can install and run apps from Aurora store without having Google Services installed? Did Aurora store replace Google Services somehow? Many apps depend on those services.
- Mordisquitos 3y agoMany of the Google Services functionalities can be provided, mimicked, or worked around with microG: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y agoGoogle Play is not just app store, but also the only way to efficiently deliver push notifications on Android devices. And latest modifications to Android OS make it very rippled without push notifications, all background apps unload from memory very fast. The result is that it makes many types of apps impossible to implement without relying on push notifications - and lock in to Google Play services. Same is true for Apple, of course.
- codethief 3y agoWhile they carry almost the same name, Google Play Services are not the same as the Play Store, though. You can use the former without using the latter.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y agoI highly doubt that a manufacturer can release an Android phone that does not have Google Play Store app but does use Google Play Services. We have evidence that Google prohibits even releasing other models w/out Google Play store if it wants to make Androids with Google Play.
- codethief 3y agoOh absolutely!
- SushiHippie 3y agoWhat does google play store have compared to third party stores?
- devit 3y agoIt runs as a privileged app. It uses that to install new applications and update applications installed by other app stores without the OS-level confirmation, probably can't be uninstalled on most Android OSes and perhaps some other things.
- SushiHippie 3y agoAuto updates can be implemented by other apps without prompt. [0] But you're right on initial install there is that installation confirmation prompt and other stores may be uninstalled. [0] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageInstaller.SessionParams#setRequireUserAction(int) https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd we have already seen what happens when third party companies go around the Google Play store. You might have heard about this little company https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-games-has-already-exposed-android-users-to-unacceptable-fortnite-malware-risks/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-gam...
- akira2501 3y agoIt feels like you're trying to use the existence of some criminal acts as a justification for a different set of criminal acts. So, yes, when users literally own their own devices, it is difficult for the manufacturer to keep them perfectly secure without abusing monopoly power. The door also swings the other way here too, because malware has certainly existed _inside_ the Play Store, and it took _users_ to bring it to the billion dollar corporations attention.
- scarface_74 3y agoYou realize the same company suing Google and saying that allowing third party app stores is the same company that actually introduced a vulnerability by doing so? The entire value proposition of the App Store is the sandbox. But Android security sucks either way
- tpush 3y agoSandboxing had nothing to with any app store, and Android security empathetically doesn't suck.
- scarface_74 3y agoI just had a coworker say that he surreptitiously installed an app on his son’s phone that allowed him to see everything his son was doing remotely and listen in to his son’s conversations. He showed it to us in action.
- 3y ago
- martimarkov 3y agoHope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I certainly do so and so do my parents who haven't had an issue with random apps scamming them and stealing their card details or passwords. I really don't understand the negative sentiment against Apple - guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers and we are not really touching those or being that vocal which to me shows that it's not really a moral stance and it's a "my profits are affected stance".
- clhodapp 3y agoJust require that apps have to (non-exclusively) support Apple billing to be in the Apple store. Then you can (personally) choose to never break the glass to install something from outside the store.
- gilgoomesh 3y ago> really don't understand the negative sentiment against Apple I just want them to be better. They take 15-30% of my gross revenue and are the source of most of my stress (through regular rejections of my app updates). It would be nice if they charged less and stopped rejecting me for mentioning Android in my app copy.
- soulofmischief 3y agoThe problem is that this "choice" in iOS is an illusion, if both Google and Apple employ user-hostile, monopolist tactics. That's like saying someone chooses to stay with an abusive guardian when the only alternative, foster care, brings its own sets of challenges.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI'm curious, do you have an Amazon subscription or any of the dozens of other major subscriptions that didn't go the AppStore route because of Apple' policies ? I'm not sure at any point I experienced a "cancel all my subscriptions" in a single place, even as I was neck deep in the Apple ecosystem.
- dagmx 3y agoThe 30% is only an issue for the jury in the context of the trial where it stands to gain against competing stores. The jury did not set precedent that 30% fees in and off themselves are bad. It has very little relevance to Apple or other single market platforms (consoles etc) since they have no competing store product.
- gwbas1c 3y ago> Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too. It's a somewhat different situation with Apple. You can't buy iOS on a non-Apple phone; and a quick Google search has the iPhone at about 22% of the market.
- inkysigma 3y agoIn the US, where the case was decided, it's about 50%.
- SilverBirch 3y agoForce them to spin out the play store.
- makeitdouble 3y agoAn interesting effect could be to have more devices that don't have the Play Store by default, and Google providing sanctioned ways for the customer to add the Play Store as a choice.