- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26302348
You must log in or # to comment.
But third party stores are already allowed and supported on Android?
“Allowed and supported” is something different then “its possible”. The article mentions some points that seemingly haven’t been “supported” in the past:
- Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
- Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
- Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
- Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing
Google also can’t:
- Share app revenue “with any person or entity that distributes Android apps” or plans to launch an app store or app platform
- Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
- Offer developers money or perks not to launch their apps on rival stores
- Offer device makers or carriers money or perks to preinstall the Play Store
- Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores
Thanks Mr. Epic Judge
So they will have the same judgement for apple right?? And not the same bullshit excuse that since it’s even more locked down it’s okay for them to do it?
Apple got away with it because they were VERY careful to go up to the line without crossing it as well as careful wording of things, unfortunately.
Play Store
This is all about the Play Store though, it has literally nothing to do with competing stores. I use F-Droid today and there are no restrictions from Google about what apps I can install through that store, whether I can pay for apps through that store (some apps have donation buttons inside), etc. There’s nothing stopping Epic from distributing their own app store like F-Droid does even before this decision.
So I really don’t understand what “cracking open Android” means here. All that seems to be happening is that Google is restricted from certain actions within its own store, which is absolutely fine by me (I don’t use the Play Store), but I don’t see any actual changes to Android or third-party app stores.
The closest is this one:
Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores
But Samsung already has its own app store, no? So is there any actual evidence that this was ever a thing?
They should place these restrictions on Apple, not Google, because Apple is the one doing all of this nonsense. Yeah, Google should be reigned in a bit, but they’re really not the problem here.
Yes but only through sideloading, this order requires Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed from within Play Store, i.e. you can search for “F-Droid” from directly within Play Store and install it.
Which also comes with a bit of a positive reputation to truly allow a competitor to rise. Before, non-technical people (read:the average person) saw sideloading as dangerous because of “viruses”, which led to low uptake of Epics own store (Which they did try to distribute through sideloading)
Now if an average person sees F-Droid or other app store in the play store they’re automatically going to think “It’s in the Play Store and vetted by Google so it MUST be safe to check out”
How can Google vet an app store without vetting everything it could serve?
That’s just the perception with the average person, not that they would actually do it
this order requires Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed from within Play Store
Honestly, I don’t really agree with that. I don’t think Google should be forced to allow any app onto its store, provided there’s an alternative way users can get that app.
I installed F-Droid from its website and I’ve installed other apps directly from their respective websites, just like I normally would on a PC. I don’t see any reason for Microsoft, for example, to allow competing stores to be distributed in their Windows Store (or whatever they call it now).
The whole concept of “sideloading” is just a marketing gimmick for doing the same thing people normally do on other devices. It’s stupid and unfortunately really effective, so maybe they should get fined for that as well. But I don’t think that means Google should be forced to accept any apps that it doesn’t want to distribute.
Maybe yeah, it’s so so fast to search “F-Droid” & hit download. Even prompts (at least on some Android versions) to allow installation and takes you right to settings.
Legislating incentives & payments is interesting, but not sure it’s a huge deal to do the very fastest search with the included web browser and then be able to install just about anything afterwards.
Don’t like all the bloatware that some manufacturers stealthily install and the nag notifications that can’t be disabled but those are separate issues.
Exactly. We should make rules about scary prompts and whatnot, I’m just hesitant about requiring an app store to distribute apps it doesn’t want to for whatever reason, whether that’s an ideological, technical, or competitive reason.
It’ll be “allowed and supported” when e.g. you can download F-Droid from the Play Store instead of having to side-load it.
But doesn’t that tie third party stores to the play store more?
That means get rid of that fucking anti-sidoading shit they’re flirting with.
My initial reading of the reporting on this ruling suggests it won’t do that. App developers can opt out of most of the provisions, but Google may not pressure them to do so.
Cool. Do apple next!
Especially because they already have the infrastructure to do so with the EU’s ruling, so they can’t make any claims about it not being secure or that it’s not possible
wording “crack open” doesn’t seems appropriate
next you’re going to tell me ‘side loading’ and ‘backdoor access’ sound naughty
Maybe it was phrased like that for this very reason.
that is an epic judge right there
XDA-CHADS, TODAY WE WILL REMIND THEM.
It mentions decoupling the payment system from the store.
Is this really a good thing? It’ll lead to Google relying even more on ad revenue.
🥳🎉
What jurisdiction in this?
I’ll always read this as the article praising the judge by calling them epic.
Could be good
About fucking time
Removed by mod
