4 ms·

That's a completely different fight from what the DMA targets though. Referring to this as an Android/Google Play thing is a red herring here, this is just bog

by dzaima 2y ago

That's a completely different fight from what the DMA targets though. Referring to this as an Android/Google Play thing is a red herring here, this is just bog standard DRM, which just so happens to be made by Google (and maybe gets some special hardware support; so, if anything, DMA here would be an argument for allowing other app suppliers to be able to make equivalent DRM!).

bubblethink 2y ago
That would be an improvement. You would enforce integrity in a play store agnostic way, something that other OSes have been asking for (https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...).
g-b-r 2y ago
The verification that the user downloaded the app from the Play Store has hardly anything to do with DRM. They claim its raison d'etre is allowing "better download metrics" and control on the kinds of devices allowed to run the app; those reasons hardly justify forcing going through the Play Store (and having, and associating, a Google account).
- dzaima 2y ago
  Indeed there's no benefit to users from an app being arbitrarily tied to the Play Store, but that's entirely equivalently so to how there's no benefit to users from any sort of DRM. Perhaps "digital rights management" isn't exactly the thing to use here, but it's still the same general concept of "author of a specific piece of media/content/app adds an arbitrary technological restriction that doesn't directly benefit users in any way (while ideally not affecting intended proper users) but still potentially helps the author". It's harder to see for free apps, but for paid ones it's utterly trivial - of course you're gonna have to buy it through the Play Store with a Google account if the author has decided to only sell it on the Play Store; and afterwards wanting to use it without Google Play interference is equivalent to wanting to access media without DRM after having bought it (i.e. reasonable desire, perhaps not even illegal to attempt to achieve through arbitrary means, but owners of the respective thing can still try their damnedest to prevent you from it).
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    Well, here the app authors as well gain very little, they usually enable it just because they want the maximum "security", and are led to believe that this will help we with that

by dzaima 2y ago

bubblethink 2y ago

That would be an improvement. You would enforce integrity in a play store agnostic way, something that other OSes have been asking for (https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...).

g-b-r 2y ago

The verification that the user downloaded the app from the Play Store has hardly anything to do with DRM. They claim its raison d'etre is allowing "better download metrics" and control on the kinds of devices allowed to run the app; those reasons hardly justify forcing going through the Play Store (and having, and associating, a Google account).

dzaima 2y ago
Indeed there's no benefit to users from an app being arbitrarily tied to the Play Store, but that's entirely equivalently so to how there's no benefit to users from any sort of DRM. Perhaps "digital rights management" isn't exactly the thing to use here, but it's still the same general concept of "author of a specific piece of media/content/app adds an arbitrary technological restriction that doesn't directly benefit users in any way (while ideally not affecting intended proper users) but still potentially helps the author". It's harder to see for free apps, but for paid ones it's utterly trivial - of course you're gonna have to buy it through the Play Store with a Google account if the author has decided to only sell it on the Play Store; and afterwards wanting to use it without Google Play interference is equivalent to wanting to access media without DRM after having bought it (i.e. reasonable desire, perhaps not even illegal to attempt to achieve through arbitrary means, but owners of the respective thing can still try their damnedest to prevent you from it).
- g-b-r 2y ago
  Well, here the app authors as well gain very little, they usually enable it just because they want the maximum "security", and are led to believe that this will help we with that