6 ms·
While I view this move as hypocritical of Google, it does feel like it's in their customers' best interest. Think about it from a less technical perspective: I
by interpol_p 13y ago
While I view this move as hypocritical of Google, it does feel like it's in their customers' best interest.
Think about it from a less technical perspective: I can install an app from the official Google Play store that voids my warranty.
They can't have that on their public facing store. Google wants users to install apps, they don't want them to be afraid of voiding their warranty.
It's interesting to see how things played out over the last few years.
Google has been moving towards a more controlled environment, from something that was initially billed as open.
Apple started completely locked down with a strong customer focus, and has cautiously been making their policies more developer friendly.
I personally prefer Apple's approach, as it was always about the end user — but as a developer I was sometimes envious of Google's lenient policy. Google's assertion of control now makes me more interested in developing for their platform.
- MichaelGG 13y agoThe app doesn't void your warranty. It encourages you to perform further actions that may void your warranty. Major difference. The article is clear that Google admits the app itself is not harmful.
- interpol_p 13y agoI don't think that's a good enough distinction. If it's from the official store it should not even indirectly lead to harming your device or warranty. If an app tells you to throw your phone in the air — and I was both the phone hardware manufacturer and app store curator — I wouldn't allow it on my store either. It's going to increase customer complaints.
- eieio 13y agoNot sure if you're intentionally referencing this, but there are definitely apps in the Google Play store that explicitly encourage you to throw your phone in the air, such as Send Me To Heaven app[1] [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.carrotpop.www.smth&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.carrotpop.... (I don't actually disagree with your point, just thought it was funny)
- jMyles 13y agoEh, it's actually a pretty weak argument. It doesn't violate your warranty on a nexus device. If google believes in the nexus program, then this is not a particularly consistent position.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Dan_Nguyen 13y agoThe Nexus lines are not the only Android devices out there. Google has a huge interest in the rest of the Android lines and wouldn't want to piss off OEMs by including an app that would void their warranties. I definitely agree with what that one Reddit comment says - if you can't sideload it then you shouldn't flash your ROM.
- VikingCoder 13y agoAlways about the end user? Like when Apple said that all Apps needed to be originally written in their crappy language, and that you could not cross-compile to it? That had literally nothing to do with the end user, and everything to do with trying to enforce a monopoly.
- dave809 13y agoI'm pretty sure the restriction to objective-c was due to performance concerns.
- alxeder 13y agowhy? if the app performes badly they can just reject it, regardless of the programming language
- interpol_p 13y agoI believe it was also due to wanting developers to make use of the latest OS frameworks. Third party development frameworks often lagged behind in features (i.e, doesn't support new auto rotation features, doesn't support new camera features, and so on). The policy was changed and ultimately never enforced, but I always viewed it as a way to ensure that developers kept up-to-date.
- fpgeek 13y agoIt think the timing (days before the Adobe Flash CS5 launch, the first release that included iPhone application support, IIRC) and the eventual reversal makes it clear that this was about making life difficult for Adobe and Flash and not much else.
- interpol_p 13y agoGood point. And after having a client deliver us an Adobe Air app to "fix", I am so glad it didn't become a popular way to develop iOS apps.
- 13y ago
- byjove 13y agoHow is it “hypocritical”? they tend to boot malware as well from the play store, which also violates the TOS. This app has bricked the devices of less technical users and left them without a warranty, Google's obligations is to prevent that.
- interpol_p 13y agoFair enough, calling Google hypocritical was reactionary on my part. In my memories of Google's introduction of the Android Market, they seemed to play-up the "no review period" as an advantage over the App Store. I think there has been some mixed messaging from Google over the years — they extol openness and developer freedoms, but clearly enforce terms of service where it counts. Perhaps it's not hypocritical, but at times it feels like there are two Googles.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- drcube 13y agoIt doesn't void my warranty. Nor millions of others'.
- thekiwi99 13y agoWhile I agree that the Play Store is becoming more controlled, the fact that you can sideload apps means that ultimately, the platform itself is still very open -- maybe just not as much to the typical end user.