this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
512 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59631 readers
3022 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Allowed and supported" is something different then "its possible". The article mentions some points that seemingly haven't been "supported" in the past:
Thanks Mr. Epic Judge
WTF, they can rule Google can't offer perks for exclusivity, but epic does that shit with it's game store.
Because Google holds a monopoly position and Epic doesn't.
That said, the irony didn't escape me either.
One offers an exclusivity contract in exchange for guaranteed income, the other offers exclusivity in exchange for having your app on their store.
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.
No, because apple's monopoly doesnt count because they're upfront about it being a monopoly.
Which is stupid, but that's how it works apparently
The EU is probably working on that front at the very least. Unfortunately the US side may need regulators to carry it forward
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:
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
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.
@sugar_in_your_tea @cm0002 That's the thing: Microsoft Store allows you to download Epic Games Store, Battle.net and Ubisoft Connect from their store. I don't see anything bad with being able to download F-Droid from Google Play, as long as there's a way to protect it from impersonators or malicious apps.
Can confirm, I just pulled up Epic Games Store from within the MS Store lol
And on top of that, this isn't some startup who has to depend on every dollar, even if you're right @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works this is fucking Google with a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR market cap they can lose some revenue to make room for some competition even if it's a tad unfair.
I'm not shedding any tears for Google, but we shouldn't be doing things just because we don't like the person or group being impacted.
I absolutely hate Google and have spent a lot of time de-Googling my life. But when it comes to legal precedent, I think we should be very careful.
True, but legal precedents can be nuanced
For example, that whole litmus test with the three questions to determine if something is art or pornographic or obscene was borne out of a legal precedent.
So something similar could come out of this, where it's only applicable if the company in question is X market cap and controlling Y percentage of the market segment or whatever. It doesn't have to nor should be an all or nothing kinda thing
I suppose that's fair, I'm just concerned that smaller orgs will be caught in the crosshairs, while larger, better funded orgs find the loopholes. In general, my opinion is that the simpler the rules are, the less likely for your average small org to get screwed, because they're playing by the same, simple rules as the larger orgs.
In this case, if I create an Android competitor and my income stream depends on revenue from my app store, would I be expected to support the Play Store if it can run it? I think Google would have a valid argument here if they're forced to support my store on their platform. Or maybe I can start w/o it, but if I get past a certain amount of sales, I would have to, which could mean that I still get screwed once I hit that threshold.
So I'm skeptical and would need to see the law first. I just think, in general, we shouldn't be making policy as a knee-jerk reaction to orgs we don't like. For example, I think the TikTok ban is dangerous precedent, despite loathing TikTok.
I don't see a problem with F-Droid being available on Google Play, I just don't think it should be a requirement to allow competitors' app stores in their app store.
That said, it's interesting that Microsoft Store allows alternative stores. I've avoided the Microsoft Store like the plague, so that's cool. Maybe that's a good argument for Google being required to follow suit. Idk, I just don't like the idea of an app store being forced to support direct competitors, that seems like a conflict of interest and I honestly wouldn't trust that store to be consistently up-to-date.
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.
Where does it say in the ruling that the play store has to host and distribute other stores in the ruling? I didn't notice anything in there about that.
It's...in the first paragraph
Wow. That's brutal.
Doesn't FDroid still not allow automatic updates due to restrictions in Android?
Meanwhile yes the Samsung galaxy store has extra power over other store alternatives because they are a powerful OEM and can modify Android as they like.
Other OEMs (ones that are often not able to use Play Services) also have their own 1st party app store. Amazon is one, but many others exist in China.
Fdroid has automatic updates since this year.
Not sure, but I generally disable them in any store I use anyway, because I like to be in control. So I'm not sure if it's a technical limitation or a technical choice.
So it's quite possible Google Play has elevated permissions to apply automatic updates. That said, I use GrapheneOS (on a Google Pixel device), so the Play store doesn't have those elevated permissions (I only use it for a couple apps on a separate profile), so I think it's not allowed to do automatic updates on my device as well.