8 ms·

> Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Au

by koolba 3y ago

> Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? > Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door of your walled garden. > Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world consequence of this won’t be improved competition. It will be grandma getting fleeced. It’s not that it should be possible, but making it not “scary” is not a good idea for the reality we live in.

ehsankia 3y ago
Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand, people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same with security.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I? The only reason people would ever use another store is if they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of course the situation on PC where you need to install another store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google made deals to prevent.
  - ehsankia 3y ago
    I'm mostly agreeing with you. Steam definitely has a monopoly of PC gaming, but it's also true that having a single place with all your games and friends is far more convenient. I'm not sure where the right balance is. Are we paying more due to the lack of competition to Valve's 30%? Would more competition be worth the fragmentation? Look at streaming services and the mess that has become. I'm not sure what the answer is.
    - georgyo 3y ago
      Steam is a bit of a very special case and I think very different from either Apple or Google stores. Steam is never part of a platform, except for maybe the steam deck, and even there it lets you very easily replace it. Steam will install other stores automatically for you. Does the game need EA's origin or what ever the epic store is called? It will install it as part of playing that game. Users will have multiple stores installed and will continue to choose Steam. In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. To even get Steam, you as a user have to make a very conscious choice to install it. Steam is very much the choice of users and even many developers. Steam is a private company and doesn't seem in the business of ever attempting to screw with or limit users. Hell, Steams development of wine/pronton is the explicit choice to give users more choice. Steam maybe an app store, but IMHO it is definitely not ever forcing anyone to do anything, unlike Apple or Google.
      - amadeuspagel 3y ago
        > In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. Every Samsung and Xiami phone comes with another store.
        georgyo 3y ago
        I think you missed my point. Even if that is the case, it is still another store that the hardware vendor installed. Most likely uninstallable without rooting the device. Steam does not come preinstalled (except for the steam deck), users choose to install it on platforms they own. Steam is removable from all platforms with minimum fuss. Steam can and will install competing app stores. None of these facts are true on Apple, Google, or other preinstalled mobile app stores.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  > anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive.. Sure, anything Google does to make it more cohesive... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. Are people confused because they can choose whether to buy things at Walmart, Target, Amazon or the local convenience store? Is this "fragmentation"? Should we get rid of these others and have only Amazon, so people aren't confused? It's not really that confusing. You can go to any shady website on the internet and give them your credit card number and find out what happens, but people mostly just buy things from stores they trust -- even though there are many of them. Why is this different? (Actual reason: Because the incumbents suppress the other stores so none of them gets popular enough to establish a reputation with the public at large.)
  - Scion9066 3y ago
    Because it might not end up being a choice of which store to get things from like your physical goods example. For the larger apps/those from specific publishers it may likely be a choice of: Meta apps only from the Meta Store, Epic Games apps only from the Epic Games store, etc. And regarding the security aspect: once people expect to download a random app store for every company, they'll be less hesitant to download one that's just malware.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > For the larger apps/those from specific publishers it may likely be a choice of: Meta apps only from the Meta Store, Epic Games apps only from the Epic Games store, etc. That's not really different than anything else. You can only get Great Value brand products from Walmart. But when this happens it's typically because the store and the maker of the product are the same company. Then you don't have to worry about the store having a monopoly because either the product has competitors, and then you can use those, or it doesn't, in which case you're dealing with a monopolist regardless of how many stores you can get it from. But it's not even clear this would happen if there actually was competition between stores, because why does every random company need its own store if there was enough competition between stores that they could just put their app in existing popular stores without having to pay excessive margins or being subject to abusive monopoly practices? > And regarding the security aspect: once people expect to download a random app store for every company, they'll be less hesitant to download one that's just malware. An app store which is just malware would be illegal, and then get removed by court order for being illegal (or cease to exist because the proprietors are in prison). You can allow legitimate competitors without allowing overt criminal activity. The obvious distinction is that who decides what's prohibited is an elected government subject to constitutional restrictions rather than a competitor with a conflict of interest.
qingcharles 3y ago
The payout I just got from the last Google class action was PayPal or check. I chose PayPal and they mailed me a check.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wredue 3y ago
TLDR: Google was exploiting “openness” as a concept while actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss as op asserts. It’s neat that you make this a Google vs apple thing somehow, but the walled garden had very little to do with the lawsuit. Google was found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. This behaviour is used by at least some consumers to make decisions (being an “open platform”), but which Google was forcibly manipulating behind to scenes to not actually be as open as they were pretending to be. You can call it just “apple keeping a walled garden” all you like, it doesn’t change that Google was attempting to shift market behaviours based on what was demonstrably a lie. For all intents and purposes, Google *was a walled garden*, and comments like yours show that their manipulation worked.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  The walled garden has everything to do with the lawsuit. This lawsuit would not have happened had Android been a walled garden.
  - wredue 3y ago
    Android *is a walled garden*, and that’s why they lost. Google asserts that they are open while actively being closed and anti-competitive. This is a win for openness. Not a loss.
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      Android is open, there is competition otherwise there couldn't be "unfair competition".
      - wredue 3y ago
        No. They pretend to be open. They speak out of one side of their mouths and behave from the other.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
buu700 3y ago
I'm dismayed that Google wasn't forced to revert the decision to block new apps from using their own signing keys[1]. That's far more problematic than the so-called "scare screens". 1: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-replacement-pros-cons https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-replacement-p...
- EE84M3i 3y ago
  How would this effect normal users? For 99.9% of android users I don't think matters.
  - qmarchi 3y ago
    The impediment is that if your application is distributed via the Play Store, and is removed for some reason, another installer/store (FDroid, etc.) can't update the existing package. This means that the user can't seamlessly transition between the old and new distribution methods without fully uninstalling the app and wiping the data contained theirin.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      No, you can still provide Google your own key. The enormous problem with that change is instead that indeed you're required to provide the keys to Google, which can thus replace your app with anything else (especially, something that a court orders them to use). Anyway to switch to F-Droid you always had to reinstall the app, because they use their own signing keys (and indeed could be ordered to do the same thing as above, but it's less likely). Although, I think there actually is a mechanism to switch signatures; but if I remember well it entails signing with the new signature a version signed with the old one, so it's complex.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        This has changed[0] >All the years before, F-Droid created a dedicated key for each app to sign the published APKs, but now with reproducible builds F-Droid ships APKs that are signed by the upstream developer [0] https://f-droid.org/en/2023/09/03/reproducible-builds-signing-keys-and-binary-repos.html https://f-droid.org/en/2023/09/03/reproducible-builds-signin...
ceejayoz 3y ago
> I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? I got a $0.13 cent check from some iTunes class action settlement. edit: Think it was this one. https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cent-check-in-a-class-action-settlement-what-should-we-buy/article_832a4a0a-9763-11ed-878d-0bf27837fcd1.html https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cen...
wesapien 3y ago
I just don't see many supposed grandma's (or prey people) make tweaks or go out and seek software outside of the playstore. The only reason my dad uses Newpipe is because of me. Someone knowledgeable has to introduce it to them. The most adventurous thing these people will do on their own is download apps on the playstore by themselves and sign in their app.
- ralph84 3y ago
  Until grandma gets a call from a nice gentleman at “Google tech support” who walks her through the process.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    Or a nice popup informing her that her phone is infected with 1 billion viruses and she needs AV software right this minute.
    - wesapien 3y ago
      If they take the bait, them warning signs are useless. You're giving a novice a choice between removing the viruses on their phone and the dangers of installing third party software. Do you think the prey will be like: wait a minute, I see what this malware is doing? Ha! lmao
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        iOS also has the ability to trick users into downloading virus protectors. But they really can’t do much harm
        twism 3y ago
        that's because you are downloading from the apple app store ... try jailbreaking your iPhone and keep installing random things from cydia. Pwnage awaits
turquoisevar 3y ago
> It will be grandma getting fleeced. Not just grandma. We need to move away from the idea that just a handful of digital illiterate seniors will get screwed. Android has been the main target for malware for a while now. Nokia’s Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems, in the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as they’ve done in prior reports, this year they again highlight that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate apps distributed via alternative means: > Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However, most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized applications and since Android users can load application from just about anywhere, it’s much easier to trick them into installing applications that are infected with malware. Android users can protect themselves by only installing applications from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile anti-virus product on their device. 0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-2021.html https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-20... 1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-intelligence-report/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-int...
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Uh installing from just about anywhere that's unheard of in the history of computing!!!
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    And nothing ever went wrong with that in the history of mankind, right?
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      It went so wrong that a history of computing exists!!! Anyhow, I don't argue that the security of most current computers is poor, but turning them into appsfromonestore-downloading devices is not the answer. (there are plenty of systems safer than Android)
- g-b-r 3y ago
quitit 3y ago
Agreed. We have the entire history of personal computing to know the consequences of these changes. Industry experts still state, ad nauseam, that side loading and 3rd party app stores are the overwhelming source of Android malware. (Source: Nokia Threat Intelligence report: literally every single year it is issued.) There are better solutions available, such as directly addressing developer's complaints, rather than hoping a competitor will materialise: - Requiring google spin off the approval process into an independent, audited entity. - Legislate a maximum price for transaction fees (like how some markets do with bank fees) - Legislate a maximum price for listing/admin fees (like how some markets do with staple goods) What isn't the solution is removing all guard rails from the number 1 source of malware. Also I don't care much for deemphasising the role of a trusted app store. This is mainly harmful to startups and small developers, since the likes of Spotify can fly solo and undercut smaller developers which rely on Google’s store for visibility and user trust in transactions. Few will hand over their banking details to these smaller developers, especially if they’re overseas or using a different currency. An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware. Yet this same generation is not scared of smartphones and tablet computers and contributes significant spend to the app ecosystem. I fear that once legislators and court rooms bring back the risks of computing in the '90s, it will take us back to square 1.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  > An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware Sorry but that's just a ridiculous and entirely false claim
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware. Which entire generation was this?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I personally will install any crap on my iPhone mostly with assurances that it can’t do any damage to my phone. On the other hand supposedly reputable companies like Zoom have been found to install secret backdoor on Mac’s - a full web server - causing a massive vulnerability. I’m much more cautious about installing something on my Mac or work PC.
sneak 3y ago
> How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? It’s rentseeking monopolies all the way down.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
henriquez 3y ago
Grandma getting fleeced is a small price to pay when the alternative is totalitarianism.
- graeme 3y ago
  If Android is perceived as a place where normal people get fleeced, then the logical recommendation for non tech literate people will be “get an iphone”
  - henriquez 3y ago
    Therefore people shouldn’t be allowed to install software on computers they bought.

by koolba 3y ago

ehsankia 3y ago

Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand, people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same with security.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals? I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I? The only reason people would ever use another store is if they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of course the situation on PC where you need to install another store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google made deals to prevent.
- ehsankia 3y ago
  I'm mostly agreeing with you. Steam definitely has a monopoly of PC gaming, but it's also true that having a single place with all your games and friends is far more convenient. I'm not sure where the right balance is. Are we paying more due to the lack of competition to Valve's 30%? Would more competition be worth the fragmentation? Look at streaming services and the mess that has become. I'm not sure what the answer is.
  - georgyo 3y ago
    Steam is a bit of a very special case and I think very different from either Apple or Google stores. Steam is never part of a platform, except for maybe the steam deck, and even there it lets you very easily replace it. Steam will install other stores automatically for you. Does the game need EA's origin or what ever the epic store is called? It will install it as part of playing that game. Users will have multiple stores installed and will continue to choose Steam. In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. To even get Steam, you as a user have to make a very conscious choice to install it. Steam is very much the choice of users and even many developers. Steam is a private company and doesn't seem in the business of ever attempting to screw with or limit users. Hell, Steams development of wine/pronton is the explicit choice to give users more choice. Steam maybe an app store, but IMHO it is definitely not ever forcing anyone to do anything, unlike Apple or Google.
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      > In the case of Apple or Google, I'm given a store forcefully. Google let's you jump through hoops to get another store but it isn't easy. Every Samsung and Xiami phone comes with another store.
      - georgyo 3y ago
        I think you missed my point. Even if that is the case, it is still another store that the hardware vendor installed. Most likely uninstallable without rooting the device. Steam does not come preinstalled (except for the steam deck), users choose to install it on platforms they own. Steam is removable from all platforms with minimum fuss. Steam can and will install competing app stores. None of these facts are true on Apple, Google, or other preinstalled mobile app stores.
g-b-r 3y ago
> anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive.. Sure, anything Google does to make it more cohesive... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade. Are people confused because they can choose whether to buy things at Walmart, Target, Amazon or the local convenience store? Is this "fragmentation"? Should we get rid of these others and have only Amazon, so people aren't confused? It's not really that confusing. You can go to any shady website on the internet and give them your credit card number and find out what happens, but people mostly just buy things from stores they trust -- even though there are many of them. Why is this different? (Actual reason: Because the incumbents suppress the other stores so none of them gets popular enough to establish a reputation with the public at large.)
- Scion9066 3y ago
  Because it might not end up being a choice of which store to get things from like your physical goods example. For the larger apps/those from specific publishers it may likely be a choice of: Meta apps only from the Meta Store, Epic Games apps only from the Epic Games store, etc. And regarding the security aspect: once people expect to download a random app store for every company, they'll be less hesitant to download one that's just malware.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > For the larger apps/those from specific publishers it may likely be a choice of: Meta apps only from the Meta Store, Epic Games apps only from the Epic Games store, etc. That's not really different than anything else. You can only get Great Value brand products from Walmart. But when this happens it's typically because the store and the maker of the product are the same company. Then you don't have to worry about the store having a monopoly because either the product has competitors, and then you can use those, or it doesn't, in which case you're dealing with a monopolist regardless of how many stores you can get it from. But it's not even clear this would happen if there actually was competition between stores, because why does every random company need its own store if there was enough competition between stores that they could just put their app in existing popular stores without having to pay excessive margins or being subject to abusive monopoly practices? > And regarding the security aspect: once people expect to download a random app store for every company, they'll be less hesitant to download one that's just malware. An app store which is just malware would be illegal, and then get removed by court order for being illegal (or cease to exist because the proprietors are in prison). You can allow legitimate competitors without allowing overt criminal activity. The obvious distinction is that who decides what's prohibited is an elected government subject to constitutional restrictions rather than a competitor with a conflict of interest.

qingcharles 3y ago

The payout I just got from the last Google class action was PayPal or check. I chose PayPal and they mailed me a check.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wredue 3y ago

TLDR: Google was exploiting “openness” as a concept while actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss as op asserts. It’s neat that you make this a Google vs apple thing somehow, but the walled garden had very little to do with the lawsuit. Google was found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. This behaviour is used by at least some consumers to make decisions (being an “open platform”), but which Google was forcibly manipulating behind to scenes to not actually be as open as they were pretending to be. You can call it just “apple keeping a walled garden” all you like, it doesn’t change that Google was attempting to shift market behaviours based on what was demonstrably a lie. For all intents and purposes, Google *was a walled garden*, and comments like yours show that their manipulation worked.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
The walled garden has everything to do with the lawsuit. This lawsuit would not have happened had Android been a walled garden.
- wredue 3y ago
  Android *is a walled garden*, and that’s why they lost. Google asserts that they are open while actively being closed and anti-competitive. This is a win for openness. Not a loss.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    Android is open, there is competition otherwise there couldn't be "unfair competition".
    - wredue 3y ago
      No. They pretend to be open. They speak out of one side of their mouths and behave from the other.
      - amadeuspagel 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

buu700 3y ago

I'm dismayed that Google wasn't forced to revert the decision to block new apps from using their own signing keys[1]. That's far more problematic than the so-called "scare screens". 1: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-replacement-pros-cons https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-replacement-p...

EE84M3i 3y ago
How would this effect normal users? For 99.9% of android users I don't think matters.
- qmarchi 3y ago
  The impediment is that if your application is distributed via the Play Store, and is removed for some reason, another installer/store (FDroid, etc.) can't update the existing package. This means that the user can't seamlessly transition between the old and new distribution methods without fully uninstalling the app and wiping the data contained theirin.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    No, you can still provide Google your own key. The enormous problem with that change is instead that indeed you're required to provide the keys to Google, which can thus replace your app with anything else (especially, something that a court orders them to use). Anyway to switch to F-Droid you always had to reinstall the app, because they use their own signing keys (and indeed could be ordered to do the same thing as above, but it's less likely). Although, I think there actually is a mechanism to switch signatures; but if I remember well it entails signing with the new signature a version signed with the old one, so it's complex.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
      This has changed[0] >All the years before, F-Droid created a dedicated key for each app to sign the published APKs, but now with reproducible builds F-Droid ships APKs that are signed by the upstream developer [0] https://f-droid.org/en/2023/09/03/reproducible-builds-signing-keys-and-binary-repos.html https://f-droid.org/en/2023/09/03/reproducible-builds-signin...

ceejayoz 3y ago

> I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? I got a $0.13 cent check from some iTunes class action settlement. edit: Think it was this one. https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cent-check-in-a-class-action-settlement-what-should-we-buy/article_832a4a0a-9763-11ed-878d-0bf27837fcd1.html https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cen...

wesapien 3y ago

I just don't see many supposed grandma's (or prey people) make tweaks or go out and seek software outside of the playstore. The only reason my dad uses Newpipe is because of me. Someone knowledgeable has to introduce it to them. The most adventurous thing these people will do on their own is download apps on the playstore by themselves and sign in their app.

ralph84 3y ago
Until grandma gets a call from a nice gentleman at “Google tech support” who walks her through the process.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Or a nice popup informing her that her phone is infected with 1 billion viruses and she needs AV software right this minute.
  - wesapien 3y ago
    If they take the bait, them warning signs are useless. You're giving a novice a choice between removing the viruses on their phone and the dangers of installing third party software. Do you think the prey will be like: wait a minute, I see what this malware is doing? Ha! lmao
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      iOS also has the ability to trick users into downloading virus protectors. But they really can’t do much harm
      - twism 3y ago
        that's because you are downloading from the apple app store ... try jailbreaking your iPhone and keep installing random things from cydia. Pwnage awaits

turquoisevar 3y ago

> It will be grandma getting fleeced. Not just grandma. We need to move away from the idea that just a handful of digital illiterate seniors will get screwed. Android has been the main target for malware for a while now. Nokia’s Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems, in the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as they’ve done in prior reports, this year they again highlight that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate apps distributed via alternative means: > Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However, most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized applications and since Android users can load application from just about anywhere, it’s much easier to trick them into installing applications that are infected with malware. Android users can protect themselves by only installing applications from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile anti-virus product on their device. 0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-2021.html https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-20... 1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-intelligence-report/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-int...

g-b-r 3y ago
Uh installing from just about anywhere that's unheard of in the history of computing!!!
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  And nothing ever went wrong with that in the history of mankind, right?
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    It went so wrong that a history of computing exists!!! Anyhow, I don't argue that the security of most current computers is poor, but turning them into appsfromonestore-downloading devices is not the answer. (there are plenty of systems safer than Android)
g-b-r 3y ago

quitit 3y ago

Agreed. We have the entire history of personal computing to know the consequences of these changes. Industry experts still state, ad nauseam, that side loading and 3rd party app stores are the overwhelming source of Android malware. (Source: Nokia Threat Intelligence report: literally every single year it is issued.) There are better solutions available, such as directly addressing developer's complaints, rather than hoping a competitor will materialise: - Requiring google spin off the approval process into an independent, audited entity. - Legislate a maximum price for transaction fees (like how some markets do with bank fees) - Legislate a maximum price for listing/admin fees (like how some markets do with staple goods) What isn't the solution is removing all guard rails from the number 1 source of malware. Also I don't care much for deemphasising the role of a trusted app store. This is mainly harmful to startups and small developers, since the likes of Spotify can fly solo and undercut smaller developers which rely on Google’s store for visibility and user trust in transactions. Few will hand over their banking details to these smaller developers, especially if they’re overseas or using a different currency. An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware. Yet this same generation is not scared of smartphones and tablet computers and contributes significant spend to the app ecosystem. I fear that once legislators and court rooms bring back the risks of computing in the '90s, it will take us back to square 1.

g-b-r 3y ago
> An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware Sorry but that's just a ridiculous and entirely false claim
dragonwriter 3y ago
> An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware. Which entire generation was this?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  I personally will install any crap on my iPhone mostly with assurances that it can’t do any damage to my phone. On the other hand supposedly reputable companies like Zoom have been found to install secret backdoor on Mac’s - a full web server - causing a massive vulnerability. I’m much more cautious about installing something on my Mac or work PC.

sneak 3y ago

> How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout? It’s rentseeking monopolies all the way down.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

henriquez 3y ago

Grandma getting fleeced is a small price to pay when the alternative is totalitarianism.

graeme 3y ago
If Android is perceived as a place where normal people get fleeced, then the logical recommendation for non tech literate people will be “get an iphone”
- henriquez 3y ago
  Therefore people shouldn’t be allowed to install software on computers they bought.