No mention of the other part of this announcement [1]: "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year’s Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices"
Yeah, I see both moves as being part of a careful dance around pending anti-trust issues. They're about to force holdouts to use their IAP system, which would be bad optics from an anti-trust point of view. However, if at the same time they make 3rd part app stores more viable they have a strong defense of "Look developers can sell their apps in other places on Android but if they want to sell through us, these are the terms."
If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing.
bogwog 1284 days ago [-]
> If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing.
It will better, but it’s hardly “good”. It would still mean that Google gets to decide exactly which rights and protections their competitors should have on Android.
It should be the other way around: government regulators (to protect the interests of consumers and the health of the free market) should decide how much power Google has over its competitors.
ineedasername 1284 days ago [-]
That depends on how they implement 3rd party app stores. If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors.
I'm not sure government regulation needs to enter the picture unless courts decide there's an anti-trust issue, which open 3rd part app stores might make less likely. For Android, at least. Good still would face anti trust problems in other areas.
bogwog 1284 days ago [-]
> If anyone can make one, then Google doesn't have undue control over competitors.
That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD.
The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.
thebean11 1284 days ago [-]
> Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD.
But Google can do any thing right? They could push an update that plays Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am.
What are you suggesting they do, and doesn't you argument apply to every software publisher?
bogwog 1284 days ago [-]
> But Google can do any thing right? They could push an update that plays Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am.
Sure, but they are not incentivized to do that. Forcing out competitors is something they're directly incentivized to do because it makes them more money. You can't trust a company not to do what a company exists to do.
The problem is that Google (and Apple) are way too big and powerful, and their pursuit for higher profits is stifling competition, innovation, and hurting the economy.
> doesn't you argument apply to every software publisher?
Not every publisher is immune to market forces the way Google and Apple are. If Spotify started blasting Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am, they'd go out of business overnight. If Google did it, people would just put their phones in another room when they go to bed.
thebean11 1283 days ago [-]
> Sure, but they are not incentivized to do that. Forcing out competitors is something they're directly incentivized to do because it makes them more money.
Then why even go through the motions of making life easier for app stores right now? Because of antitrust? I guess I'm just not sure why that would change later. Google will still be an antitrust target 5 years from now.
In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
bogwog 1283 days ago [-]
> Then why even go through the motions of making life easier for app stores right now?
We can only speculate. Maybe it's a reaction to the legal issues they're facing right now, both from the DOJ investigation and the Epic lawsuit? Or maybe it's a more cynical plan to kill competitors by letting them think it's smart to invest in a competing store now, only to claw back control in the future and force them to lose customers and go out of business?
Maybe the upcoming changes don't actually make life significantly easier for third-party app stores (AFAIK they haven't shown what the changes actually are), and this is just a BS move to make them look better in the short term.
> In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
Google? Nothing. In an ideal world, tech giants wouldn't be allowed to self-regulate anymore. Google could do whatever they want, but sane and reasonable regulations would keep them in check.
thebean11 1283 days ago [-]
> Google could do whatever they want, but sane and reasonable regulations would keep them in check.
I may be naive, but Google's move seems like evidence that the regulations are keeping them in check to some extent.
bogwog 1283 days ago [-]
But there are no regulations. This move is (most likely) a reaction to the recent lawsuits and the potential risk of future regulations. For the past 10 years they've done nothing remotely like this, and likely wouldn't have done anything if it weren't for Epic.
note that we still don't really know what exactly it is they're doing, since the blog post was vague on specifics. It could literally be nothing.
blinkingled 1284 days ago [-]
> That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
That's true even today - you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button. You can even root it and go further - much easier for Pixels - sure some apps will refuse to work on rooted devices but that's hardly Google's fault.
What are you trying to demand here - complete anarchy like PCs? I am not sure that's a good thing.
bogwog 1284 days ago [-]
> you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button
I can because I'm a computer geek. The majority of the population wouldn't know how to or care to learn how to go through the trouble of enabling "unknown sources" and ignoring all the scary malware warnings. Without that population, the prospect of running a commercial third-party store is hopeless.
> complete anarchy like PCs?
What anarchy? Software distribution on PC is great because users can, and regularly do, go straight to the vendor's website to buy their software. There is no middle-man.
From the security side, since Android and iOS have had sandboxing built in from day one, the risk of downloading software from a random website is much lower than it is on Windows. It's not zero, but it is lower, and it's not that much riskier than downloading a random app on Google Play (which has always been filled with malware).
But lets say it's still too risky for some reason. Fine. That's what anti-virus software is for.
blinkingled 1283 days ago [-]
So you want Google to basically advertise/encourage how to install stuff from unknown sources or to enable it by default?
I am not sure that's a good thing for majority of the population. Sandboxing does nothing if you download untrusted apps and give them permission to send SMS or setup a VPN or do whole lot of damage. If you aren't a geek you are saying ok to anything any app asks.
Android actually optionally, with rightful warnings allows PC like anarchy for geeks - if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
bogwog 1283 days ago [-]
> I am not sure that's a good thing for majority of the population. Sandboxing does nothing if you download untrusted apps and give them permission to send SMS or setup a VPN or do whole lot of damage. If you aren't a geek you are saying ok to anything any app asks.
People already say ok to anything any app asks on Google Play. That isn't a problem unique to competing app stores, it's a problem with Android's permissions UI/UX. Just look at any non-tech-savvy Android user's phone to see that "anarchy" is already the status quo.
> if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
As I said, it depends on Google's implementation of 3rd party app stores. Any platform has power over what appears on the platform. Pointing out that Google does as well is practically axiomatic.
You aren't just making an argument against google, your line if thinking would vilainize all platforms. At the same time that you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform. I fundamentally disagree. As-is, I think Android has exposure to anti-trust accusations. But an open system of allowing 3rd party app stores nullifies that. Of course they'll still have control, but the measure of abusing power isn't that you have it, it's how you use it. And Google might be smart enough to realize that their use of power until now has brought too much anti-trust scrutiny, and that needs to change. Or maybe they'll screw it up, but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad. That is a narrow view that assumes Google doesn't understand the dangerous position it's in right now.
bogwog 1282 days ago [-]
> Any platform has power over what appears on the platform. Pointing out that Google does as well is practically axiomatic.
That's not what I'm pointing out or focusing on.
> you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform
I never said or implied that.
> but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad
I don't believe that, and have not said anything to suggest that I do.
The assumptions you are making about me or my argument to arrive at these conclusions seem to be inaccurate. I would be happy to continue this discussion, as long as you ask me to clarify something rather than attempt to arrive at your own conclusions, potentially derailing the whole conversation.
dalbasal 1284 days ago [-]
Anti-trust, ultimately, is not really about optics.
Proving a "trust" is a pretty arcane affair... and fairly tangential to actual monopoly issues.
In any case, available and viable are two different things. I doubt that they'd intentionally make them viable.
1284 days ago [-]
michaelmrose 1284 days ago [-]
A salient point is that whereas the requirement to use the billing system will be phased in at once any benefits rolled out to users as part of android 12 will take 4 years reach 80% of users.
ndroid 9 released more than 2 years ago and is now and 52% of users are now on 9 or later whereas more like 80% are at least on 7 which was released 4 years ago.
Android version 10 has better update tracks than previous versions (project Treble benefits, landed in Android 9), and it keeps getting better, Android 12 should take less to reach the same user base
michaelmrose 1284 days ago [-]
10 took a year to reach 25%. It's too early to say anything about the uptake of 11 let alone 12 which doesn't exist. 80% uptake for a new version in 2 years would represent a stunning success. In that happy scenario your billing change still hits 2 years before most app customers have any chance to benefit from alternative stores ensuring that everyone pretty much has to switch over or die.
Pragmatically if I was google I would SAY I am making it easier for users to do business with someone else while making it as daunting as possible to actually do so in order to pressure vendors to at best offer both their wares for sale on both stores if they want to actually have customers.
Your play store policy can then forbid say offering your goods for sale at a lower price elsewhere or advertising the existence of an alternative version in app on the play store version.
As long as you keep it available on the play store most users will check their first and you can keep the revenue in house without strictly forbidding competition.
kuschku 1284 days ago [-]
And yet the OG Pixel hasn’t gotten any updates in a year now.
fallennode 1284 days ago [-]
The OG Pixel was released in early 2013. ~6 years of software updates is really good compared with any other smartphone.
phh 1284 days ago [-]
Uh... No... it has been released at end of 2016. It received 3 years of software upgrade, which most high-end Android OEMs deliver, (Though it got 3 major upgrades, while most OEMs stop at 2), and pales in comparaison to iPhones.
That’s weird, my OG Pixel says it has received its last security update on October 6, 2019, and has no updates available
eloisant 1284 days ago [-]
The percentage of users using the latest version isn't necessarily the percentage that matters for a given developer.
For example, if we're talking about Fortnite, usage of the latest version is certainly higher than the general population. Older versions of Android are mostly used on cheaper devices, or users who seldomly upgrade their phone, and don't care that much about installing applications.
michaelmrose 1283 days ago [-]
This is a good point but games may be a special case as they require a more powerful phone. Still there is probably a link between willingness to part with money and having a newer phone.
thebean11 1284 days ago [-]
Whereas Netflix, probably closer to the average Android version distribution..
Abishek_Muthian 1284 days ago [-]
I think even android 10 has made improvements w.r.t third party stores, I'm able to seamlessly update from Fdroid just like Playstore which wasn't possible in the earlier iterations.
jimktrains2 1284 days ago [-]
I still need to click update and then install. Is there a setting to let it update automatically? Or can you describe what's changed for you from before?
Abishek_Muthian 1283 days ago [-]
Sorry, I seem to be having Privileged Extension on my ROM[1]. But if you have unlocked boot-loader with custom recovery, you can flash the OTA to enable it as well.
I'll believe it when I see it. What does "easier" even mean? That it requires 4 steps instead of 5?
zmmmmm 1284 days ago [-]
Why is the title inaccurate / different to the article?
"Google requiring Android apps on the Play Store"
Requiring all android apps (eg: from third party app stores, built in apps shipped with phones or from vendors) as implied by the HN title would be a huge leap and have a lot of implications. But this is not that. I'm very surprised though by this statement from their post about it:
> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months
That seems astonishingly low - while I understand the Play Store is very ad driven, I had thought IAP was still a decent component of monetization. From this it sounds like the Play Store is a bit of an advertising wasteland ... or am I misunderstanding?
nacs 1284 days ago [-]
> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months
That sounds like a cherry-picked number to downplay the change but:
1) That's 90,000 apps
2) The amount of revenue those apps (like Spotify and Netflix) generate is probably in the 10s or 100s of millions
I'd bet that some of the largest revenue apps are the ones using their own billing -- the devs who make low-revenue apps probably don't want to spend the time or money to set all that up.
camhart 1284 days ago [-]
For small indie devs who's products run on multiple platforms, supporting each platforms native IAP system is a nightmare.
whakim 1284 days ago [-]
Having built a cross-platform app recently as a very small team, I want to put in a plug for RevenueCat (https://www.revenuecat.com/). They abstract away the differences between the Apple/Google APIs so you don't have to worry about dealing with both. You only interface with Revcat. They don't support every last Play Store/App Store API, but I haven't yet found that be an issue. Worth noting that our app uses subscriptions, though, so I don't really know how they do with regular old purchases (I would assume that's supported since it seems to be a simpler case).
lukeramsden 1284 days ago [-]
Another vouch for RevenueCat, has worked a charm for my project. Saved me a lot of time from not having to learn all the intricacies of both payment system backends.
camhart 1284 days ago [-]
Thanks for this. I might just do that.
manquer 1284 days ago [-]
I don't think that is too much of a worry.
Just like authentication, there will be abstraction libraries that take care of it soon enough, or somebody like stripe will build a SDK and do some consolidated billing management for you.
camhart 1284 days ago [-]
As someone in these shoes, coming from experience, it is a pain. Where it could just be stripe/whatever single payment system you choose, it now has to be an abstraction at best. The abstractions aren't perfect--they limit you to only using the common features across all payment systems you have to support. It absolutely creates a poor user experience for customers.
Want to prorate upgrades? Well google play doesn't offer that. Want to allow switching from monthly to annually? Does Apple offer that? Want to issue a partial refund? Want to credit an account? Etc.
It goes further, a customer emails and asks "how do I cancel?". Instead of having easy instructions for them, it's now a switch block for all the different IAP solutions. If that customer forgets how they signed up, now they need to dig through all the IAP steps for cancelling.
And it's not just Google Play and Apple. There's web, Windows store, amazon app store, android, ios, chrome payments (deprecated), something for linux, etc.
While revenuecat seems decent for Google/Apple, it doesn't touch any of the others.
I'm not saying it's not possible. All I'm saying is it's a whole lot of extra work just to allow the largest companies in the world to scalp 30% from an indie dev, and force a poor experience down users throats.
manquer 1283 days ago [-]
it is going to be rough around the edges. Platform pain is already there, react native is a solution to a similar problem. It is no means perfect, you cannot avoid knowing the underlying platform kinks and library limitations
Abstractions are not excuse for the underlying payment grab both the vendors are forcing on the devs. Just saying such problems and abstractions are not new and indie devs will get some relief with an abstraction
kkarakk 1284 days ago [-]
if you're a small indie dev supporting multiple platform you're a unicorn. i don't think this is a common usecase.
most devs tend to focus on apple initially and then make an android app if they blow up.
camhart 1284 days ago [-]
No doubt you start with one, but if you hit on any real vein of success you'll build for other platforms too if it makes sense to. There's no way this is "unicorn" rare. I've done it, and so have my competitors within a short time frame. All are bootstrapped.
pjmlp 1284 days ago [-]
Or given that Apple only has 20% world wide, and the local market happens to be almost exclusively Android, a couple of other smartphones and feature phones, focus on Android first, and iOS only if it ever goes global.
akmarinov 1284 days ago [-]
If you want to reach people - yes. If you want to make money - Apple’s 20% greatly outspend Android’s users, so you should start there, to verify your product.
pjmlp 1284 days ago [-]
It is hard to make money with iOS if no one in the country owns Apple devices (note "local market"), if you managed to do such feat please let us know.
akmarinov 1284 days ago [-]
No one is a bit drastic, don't you think?
pjmlp 1284 days ago [-]
It is called real world, there are plenty of countries with zero Apple devices, and if they happen to be available, only a couple of government level people have them, completely irrelevant for the companies selling their goods to the local population, the market that they actually get their money from.
So if you have a formula how the e.g. train service gets money from a selling tickets app for iOS in a country with zero iPhone presence, you have our attention.
Maybe, but I know many people that release free Android apps.
I've done it too.
I think Android App development culture is extremely different than iOS Development.
dang 1284 days ago [-]
Ok, we've added the store to the title above.
adewinter 1284 days ago [-]
>> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months
> That seems astonishingly low [...]
That depends. I would not be surprised if there were an order of magnitude more "developers with apps on the Play Store" than on the iOS store, simply because of the lower barrier to entry ($$ and lock in patterns pushed by Apple makes it harder to get started on iOS). So would that mean 3% is actually astonishingly high?
binarynate 1284 days ago [-]
Isn't it obvious that this would only apply to apps distributed through the Play Store, though? How else would Google be able enforce it?
eugeniub 1284 days ago [-]
It's not at all obvious based on the title. Many people don't know about sideloading.
black_puppydog 1284 days ago [-]
Side loading is incredibly rare as a phenomenon.
The important part of this discussion is not on the user side. Yeah they can sideload but really they won't do that because of IAP, of all things.
The important part of this discussion is on the developer side. Going through Google will mean they get to shape what apps developers can even economically build without falling back to sideloading (which just won't happen, see above) and we already see how "great" that in the iOS ecosystem.
Of course, you are in camp "IAP means clear and central subscription management, it's great for me!" then you might not care or even welcome this.
I happen to be in camp "What is good for the user should not be contingent on the business model allowing for a 30% cut going to google." There are and will be products/services users want, but not at 1.30 times the price, and those will simply become impossible now.
On the other hand... Let's just watch Rome burn and then see what we do with the ashes?
p1necone 1284 days ago [-]
Wow yeah that is a very crucial bit of information to leave out of the title.
1284 days ago [-]
dheera 1284 days ago [-]
I wonder if they'll ban PayPal, Facebook Pay, WeChat, AliPay, Western Union, and all the rest of the lot?
rrobukef 1284 days ago [-]
Each will have to negociate special terms with Google to continue operating.
harry8 1284 days ago [-]
what percentage of user installed android apps in the wild come from somewhere other than the play store? Is it high?
black_puppydog 1284 days ago [-]
I don't know reliable numbers for this and I'm not sure they exist. Would love to hear though!
But just take stock of your surroundings. Think of everyone you know, and think who of them sideload apps on a regular basis. Now correct for the tech-affinity of your social surroundings (probably high if you hang out on HN...)
For me, only the most hard-core of my friends sideload at all. Everyone else goes with stock apps. So sideloading should be in the regime of "count the zeros before the first non-zero mantissa digit."
filleduchaos 1284 days ago [-]
I don't live in anything remotely close to a tech bubble and nearly everyone I know with an Android has sideloaded apps at least once, including my parents.
Don't confuse the US experience for the global one.
9HZZRfNlpR 1284 days ago [-]
Thanks to China yes, they have their own ecosystem.
kkarakk 1284 days ago [-]
Lots of apps just get ripped off the android ecosystem and put on the chinese ecosystem if they're good enough.
harry8 1284 days ago [-]
Yeah china is different.
Instead of play store, "Default app store" to cover what ever comes with chinese phones.
Or, US and Europe, what percentage...?
chungus_khan 1284 days ago [-]
Because there isn't a single unified store (vendors have their own), it's extremely common for Chinese websites to have a link on their homepage/in their header to an apk file that can self-update.
gsich 1284 days ago [-]
It's in the single digits or even lower. None of my non-tech friends know such a thing exists.
tpxl 1284 days ago [-]
Do note that google engaged in anti-competitive practices to discourage other stores emerging.
CogitoCogito 1284 days ago [-]
Google says that the fact that 97% are already using the system somehow supports them in their goal for making it mandatory. I read the fact that 97% are already using the system as demonstrating that the system obviously doesn't need to be expanded since it basically already serves everyone as well as demonstrating that 3% obviously are not served by it and therefore shouldn't be covered by it.
Then again I guess you can interpret basically any fact in your favor if you prefer a certain interpretation.
edit: Also I might add that Google is almost certainly being disingenuous. They say that only 3% don't use the system say that includes "Netflix, Spotify, and other big services". It seems pretty obvious that it's not 3% of revenue. This explains that Google is actually doing this for money and simply lying about their intentions.
parasubvert 1284 days ago [-]
Everyone knows Google is doing this for money, that’s what every company does everything for.
It’s not lying to promote other perspectives or positives - that’s called marketing.
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
"Promoting perspectives" is fine for advertising, but not for screwing over existing users who have their own perspectives already.
jayd16 1284 days ago [-]
alright but some profit motives align with customer interests and some do not. The discussion here is to make that determination.
jojobas 1284 days ago [-]
Netflix and Spotify wouldn't care. After not finding an app in Play Store a quick google will bring them to an alternate store or something like that, it's not Apple's walled garden.
It can only affect the apps that users don't know they need.
wutbrodo 1284 days ago [-]
I think the value of Android's relative openness is often understated on HN, but in this case I don't think it helps. There is a very substantial chunk of users for whom "a quick Google bringing them to an alternate store or apk" is a hard blocker in terms of interest and/or ability.
d1zzy 1283 days ago [-]
It's hard to say if, for the average user, it's easier/more likely that they will get to the Netflix app (whether on official store or not) by clicking a link from the Netflix website than by doing a search for it in the Play Store. If they see a Netflix ad with netflix.com address on it I imagine they'll just type that in their mobile browser. A page would open, which detects the platform and prompts them to click "here" to install app. And now that link can be outside of the Play Store, the user doesn't even visit it.
But for all those that might mistakenly look for it in the Play Store, you can have a stub app there that just redirects them (opens a browser page) to where to get the real, outside the store app,
jojobas 1284 days ago [-]
They claim they made it easier to use alternate stores in this very release, and the inability of an average user to google is overstated.
There's no limit to interest to Netflix, Stranger Things won't watch itself.
clusterfish 1284 days ago [-]
Inability != Willingness and motivation and enough attention span. Anyone who has ever worked on a conversion funnel would know.
michaelmrose 1284 days ago [-]
The next release will take 4 years to reach 80% of users based on past experience. Only half of users are even on 9 which released last year.
michaelmrose 1284 days ago [-]
This wouldn't be the case had it occurred when Netflix or Spotify were getting started as opposed to being established brands. Its also not clear what people presented with the need to side load a secondary app store would just get frustrated and give up.
dingaling 1284 days ago [-]
WhatsApp provides a direct APK download from their website, no store needed
aww_dang 1284 days ago [-]
Alternatively, they might offer a crippleware version through Google and up-sell to another app store.
xorcist 1284 days ago [-]
That's a losing proposition for end users. Nobody really wants "just google some alternate store and install that" to sound reasonable for anyone (with a few exceptions).
1284 days ago [-]
rock_artist 1284 days ago [-]
Unlike Apple’s approach, Google’s one is more fair for both sides.
* you don’t need Google to sign every app. You can allow external apks and even keep Play monitoring for malicious apps.
* you can add another App Store.
* the fact you can say a user there’s another purchase way and it is relevant information.
Android feels like a democratic country vs Apple’s meritocracy.
The past few years I’ve switched back to Apple. But I still miss the ability to just compile something and run it without it being expired after a week (Apple’s free developer certs expires after a week)
GeekyBear 1284 days ago [-]
Epic already attempted to transition users away from the Google Play Store.
>“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” reads Epic’s statement. “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.”
Then Epic attempted to cut deals with device makers to preinstall their App Store on devices.
>Epic claims that Google forced phone manufacturer OnePlus to break off a deal that would have seen a special Fortnite launcher preinstalled on OnePlus phones — and demanded that another Android phonemaker, LG, abandon any plans to do the same.
I am in agreement with remarks elsewhere here that this is being done cynically to be pointed at by lawyers rather than as an actual intention to make third party app-stores better for either users or the app-store operators.
gundmc 1283 days ago [-]
You're entitled to that view, but at this point it's nothing more than baseless speculation.
1284 days ago [-]
viktorcode 1284 days ago [-]
> * you don’t need Google to sign every app. You can allow external apks and even keep Play monitoring for malicious apps.
They've updated the rules. You will need to sign every app on Play Store with the certificate provided by Google. Just like on App Store.
saghm 1284 days ago [-]
If I understand GP's comment correctly, they're referring to the fact that Android lets you install apps directly from the .apk file without needing to get it though the Play store, and you can still have Android scan the app to see if it's known to be malicious if you enable that.
rock_artist 1284 days ago [-]
Yes. but also just running your own compiled code on Apple's iDevice eco-system.
You MUST register a namespace (com.mycompany.MyApp) and get a it a certificate from them.
For paid - that's 1YR for your app to run.
For free - that's 1week for the cert.
There's no way running YOUR code on YOUR device without it being signed by Apple (or jailbreaking).
dontspeak 1284 days ago [-]
I wonder if these relaxed terms are only meant to lure someone in and lock them into Google's ecosystem. Once, you're locked in, the beast turns against you again
(They quoted it twice yet didn’t link to it - what’s up with that?)
russelg 1284 days ago [-]
The 9to5 sites are infamous for this. Can't even count the number of times I've read an apple article on 9to5mac about an apple press release, only for it to not be linked at all.
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
It's 90% PR puffery corpspeak to try to cover something up. What are the actual facts of the matter?
tegovich 1284 days ago [-]
I read this in Dale Gribble's voice.
paledot 1284 days ago [-]
"The other 97%" sounds like 9to5google's misreading of a deliberately misleading statement in the press release. Less than 3% of all apps use their own billing - but most apps don't use in-app billing at all. I suspect Google is pulling some Apple-style sleight of hand to make the impact sound trivial instead of like yet another cash grab.
> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months, and of this 3%, the vast majority (nearly 97%) already use Google Play's billing.
The only way I see to read that is: 97% of 3% already comply, and 3% of 3% don't comply.
paledot 1284 days ago [-]
I stand corrected; thank you. As others have more accurately pointed out, though, that still ignores number or value of transactions, which is a more reasonable metric to determine impact.
t0astbread 1284 days ago [-]
Why do mobile platforms have the confidence to do this? I'd imagine businesses would gravitate towards web apps if native apps require restrictions like these. Discoverability over app stores is a benefit for sure but is it that much easier to get featured on an app store compared to SEO and online advertising for a web app?
threeseed 1284 days ago [-]
Consumers hate mobile web apps.
They've been around for over a decade in various incarnations and they are always clunky, poorly designed and developed for the lowest common denominator.
And often what developers are vocal about wanting is anti-consumer e.g. most people like a single point for all subscriptions/payments.
thrwn_frthr_awy 1284 days ago [-]
I believe the counter argument is platforms are purposefully crippling or at least not advancing their mobile web experience in order to keep native apps a better experience. Personally I don't believe the case since even on the desktop web-based apps are a poor experience. Slack has such a weird desktop UI all because it isn't a true native app.
pjmlp 1284 days ago [-]
That isn't the case for Android or Windows, both Google and Microsoft are pretty heavy on PWAs, including providing access to native APIs if you package them for the stores.
FpUser 1284 days ago [-]
>"And often what developers are vocal about wanting is anti-consumer e.g. most people like a single point for all subscriptions/payments."
And then they get into dispute with Google and get their account terminated as the result along with their only email etc etc. Thanks but no thanks. I do not know about most but personally I prefer freedom of choice.
pjmlp 1284 days ago [-]
I have seen mobile Web apps much better than clunky Cordova stuff that the same consumers worship as native.
While I am on the native side, what brings money home are cross platform projects, and for CRUD stuff mobile Web is just fine, provided one doesn't download a SPA over 3G to display static text.
brmgb 1284 days ago [-]
Both Google and Apple control the browser on their mobile OS through tie in (having Chrome as default is mandatory if you want to ship Android - Apple doesn't allow other browser).
Both have ensured that's the actual experience of using web app remain terrible on their platform.
The mobile market is not at all a competitive market and it's really starting to show.
izacus 1284 days ago [-]
> Both Google and Apple control the browser on their mobile OS through tie in (having Chrome as default is mandatory if you want to ship Android - Apple doesn't allow other browser).
This is not true at all - e.g. Samsung ships their own browser as default on all their devices.
brmgb 1284 days ago [-]
> This is not true at all
Come on, not true at all ?
Admittedly Samsung might be able to ship with their browser as default. I don't remember what browser was the main one when I bought my last phone. They most definitely have to have Chrome installed (and probably as the system web view) like the rest of the Google apps if they want to ship with the Play Store.
I don't think it significantly impacts my main point.
izacus 1284 days ago [-]
Yes, it has to be installed, but there's a world of difference between having do be default like Safari on iOS and being present while another browser is the default.
tpxl 1284 days ago [-]
While Google mandated their apps, AFAIK Chrome wasn't one of them. My Note 1 has plenty of google garbage, but no chrome.
detaro 1284 days ago [-]
If you really mean a Note 1, it came out before Google started that requirement in 2012. If you mean a Note 10, those came out after Google announced they would stop the requirement in 2018 in reaction to the EU antitrust case (which specifically called out the enforced Chrome bundling as one of the things being punished)
tpxl 1283 days ago [-]
I really did mean Note 1, and I did not know of these details. Thanks for the clarification.
detaro 1283 days ago [-]
Are you still using that Note 1? I had one for a long time too, but at some point gave up on it. Curious if it's still viable today - Custom ROM or anything?
1284 days ago [-]
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
It's surprising they are doing this right now, while they are under the DOJ antitrust gun and also Apple is in a high profile lawsuit about this.
scarface74 1284 days ago [-]
You mean the “high profile lawsuit” where the judge said....
If we look at this plaintiff and industry, walled gardens have existed for decades, Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden... In this particular industry, what Apple is doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what [Epic is] asking me to do."
filleduchaos 1284 days ago [-]
The morality and/or ethics of the situation aside, I've still never gotten a satisfactory answer for why we should care that the iOS ecosystem is a walled garden to the point of wanting the US government to step in, but not maintain the same energy for the PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, etc ecosystems.
I know that the deep down answer is that many of the people in these discussions think gaming is frivolous. But my PS4 is objectively far, far more powerful than any phone I've ever had, and comes with a selection of applications beyond just games - a web browser, photo/video editor, music and video streaming, a social messaging system (and social network, via the third-party Twitch). And going by hardware alone, it would be capable of much more than that if only it wasn't so prohibitively expensive to develop for.
How is that so different from what the vast majority of people use their phones for? Yet people are far more up in arms about the $100 yearly fee for the Apple Developer Program than about the thousands of dollars ($2500 for a dev kit) it costs to even build and run a game on the PS4 (plus you have to be a registered company).
Why should an iPhone be treated as an open, general-purpose computing device if a PlayStation is not? Why should Apple be forced to make it one?
Leherenn 1284 days ago [-]
I personally think the question is reversed. Now that the consoles are rather clearly general purpose computing devices, why are they not asked to be open?
The two arguments I have seen seems pretty weak to me: they are not general-purpose computing device and that's how they make money.
I think you debunk the former pretty well, and as for the latter they are not entitled to a specific business model.
filleduchaos 1284 days ago [-]
There is a third argument which is admittedly not weak: the extremely high walls are a large part of how their measures against cheating remain miles ahead of what games on PC can offer, which is invaluable to both developers and players (especially for multiplayer games). There's tons of data to back that up, but as just one point the recently-released Fall Guys was plagued by hackers on PC from pretty much day one while there hasn't been so much as a single report of a hacker in the PlayStation version of the game.
Even then, I'd be okay with Sony offering an "unlocked" version of the PS4 that's blocked from accessing the PlayStation Network; modding offline, single-player games is not cheating in any real sense of the word, and then at least more hobbyists could develop and run things on it without committing to becoming capital-G Game Devs (or being game devs at all - there's plenty of space for regular apps as well).
At the very least, they should allow (easily) unlocking the bootloader and installing a different OS, even if it would mean that that particular console can never install Orbis OS (which funnily enough is based on FreeBSD) again. It frustrates me to no end that my PS4 will become effectively useless to me if I purchase a PS5, when it would make a perfectly good desktop with a wipe and a Linux install (some people have managed to hack this on older firmware).
That actually mirrors my stance on Apple - I have no problem with iOS as it exists, but I do have a problem with not having any other easy OS option on iDevices.
michaelmrose 1284 days ago [-]
Imagine if your builder tried to control what appliances you were allowed to install in exchange for a cut. Digital restrictions to define a market defined not by technical limitations but by arbitrary restrictions designed to extract a cut of the profit is relatively new in the grand scheme of things and its a bad road to go down.
p1necone 1284 days ago [-]
There's a crucial difference in that Android allows sideloading and the use of other app stores. Given this I feel like a lot of things that are not okay for Apple are fine for them to do as you have alternatives.
Oh, that make much more sense. Google enforced the policy against Epic, while allowing others (including itself!) to violate the policy. So it's doing uniform enforcement now to fend up charges of discrimination against Epic.
neuspadrin 1284 days ago [-]
I think while semi related, that falls under a different rule breaking that Epic did. If I recall correctly Epic was actually giving a discount to their own payment and charging more for Google/Apple. That is the violation they crossed. Using a different payment processing wasn't.
djmips 1284 days ago [-]
Maybe the analysis is go to the money trough while you can?
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
The new enforcement is still a year away.
thrwn_frthr_awy 1284 days ago [-]
If they do this now it helps Apple's case that this is normal and not a special case. And if Apple wins, Google wins.
superice 1284 days ago [-]
Imagine how bonkers this is if you consider that an app store is essentially a discovery mechanism much like a search engine is for the web. Google could say: 'If you want your website to be listed on our search engine you need to let us handle your payments', and it wouldn't be fundamentally different. The whole Apple v Epic and Google v Epic lawsuits are interesting to view with that in mind.
mumblerino 1283 days ago [-]
That’s not a fair comparison, at least on Android where you do have a choice to just google apps and install them from the open web.
App stores are more like Zapier, where your customers can find you, but you have to follow Zapier’s rules because you’re using Zapier’s platform.
candiddevmike 1284 days ago [-]
So this should impact Steam, Xbox Game Streaming, and any other software that allowed digital purchases outside of Google play right?
Our app is leveraging this "loophole" as we provide license keys for self hosting as part of purchasing the app. It's also a TWA and Google hasn't published ANY guidance on how to use a TWA with Google Play Billing. What are we supposed to do, get off Google Play?
jasonlotito 1284 days ago [-]
FTA: "Google notes how developers are “free to communicate with [customers] about alternative purchase options,” but only outside of apps. Consumption-only reader apps are also allowed."
So, yes, it will have an impact, but potentially not as great as it might seem.
candiddevmike 1284 days ago [-]
I saw this but wasn't sure if that's what it meant. Seems like a silly policy to have, all it does is inconvenience users.
p1necone 1284 days ago [-]
I'm not sure exactly what their rules are - it sounds to me like this is only for if you process payments in the Android app itself.
wilwade 1284 days ago [-]
I hope this leads to a better non-Google App store. I have to keep Google Play disabled most of the time or it forces my phone to re-enable the Chrome browser each night. I choose to use Firefox on my phone and thus have Chrome disabled (it is not uninstallable without rooting). Google Play however will enable a non-system critical app that I explicitly told the operating system to disable.
samfisher83 1284 days ago [-]
They aren't blocking you from just downloading the app. Windows has been doing this forever. Most people just download the executable you want.
userbinator 1284 days ago [-]
The one big difference between Google and Apple --- you still have to jump through a few hoops with the former, but the latter gives you zero control over what you're able to run unless you're able to jailbreak.
harry8 1284 days ago [-]
Every pre-installed android device I have ever used or seen had a bunch of utter garbage I did not want, wanted to be rid of and yet could not simply uninstall like any regular app. How to reconcile this with what you're saying here? What am I not understanding?
SargeZT 1284 days ago [-]
You're seeing phones from vendors that have tacked their own stuff on top of the Android platform. Buy a Google phone and you'll find no cruft. There are still things you can't uninstall, but they're mostly essential to the functioning of the phone.
harry8 1284 days ago [-]
Google drive. Uninstall is "unistall all updates to this system app"
Google play movies and tv - likewise, essential?
Google play music
Google Hangouts
The list goes on...
And you're telling me the manufacturer decided I can't rid myself of these and google are as suprised as I am about that? Really? I mean you can make the same argument with Apple. They're happy for you to install/uninstall whatever but the manufacturer did it their way.
izacus 1284 days ago [-]
Pretty much all of those apps can be disabled which is equivalent to uninstalled for every practical purpose. Same as iOS as well.
(The difference is that APK is part of the RO partition which cannot be modified so that's the part that can't be cleaned up.)
WoefullyInept 1284 days ago [-]
Wat? I don't own an iPhone, but I can't even uninstall iTunes on my mac.
filleduchaos 1284 days ago [-]
...iTunes is completely uninstallable on a Mac though?
The answer (as with most Mac-related things) is to disable System Integrity Protection. For some strange reason, most of the people who complain about the loss of their freedoms on macOS leave SIP enabled and I wonder why.
1284 days ago [-]
bokohut 1283 days ago [-]
As a serial fintech entrepreneur speaking from direct experience it should come as no surprise that major technology organizations are moving to control all payments as this is one function that all need to make money. All large brands own and operate their own payments systems as this is a direct factor of controlling expenses and therefore increasing revenue not to mention customer service which is growing increasing more important in this virtual faceless world. Many companies large, medium and small are now actively looking to bring payments in house as a factor of increasing asset value while simultaneously reducing expenses. If your payments volume and expenses justifies owning the process you too should consider owning it otherwise you will be at the mercy of the layers of middle men who will continue the nickel-and-diming activity.
0xfaded 1284 days ago [-]
Well this sucks for people like me who were arbitrarily banned from making payments to google, likely because I travel too much.
My current flow is: 1 tap purchase icon, 2 remember that I'm banned, 3 navigate to apps website and feel better about not losing the developer 30% of their revenue.
Let's be honest. This is just plain racket!
When regulator will finally act on this?
Just because you get an app through their store does not mean they own the apps and the users!
II2II 1284 days ago [-]
Something to consider: many of the apps affected are given away rather than sold. Imagine if brick and mortar stores were run like that ...
Now Google has several different ways to respond:
- Accept that this will happen and try to generate revenues based on other services. These services may be for developers, publishers, or consumers.
- Charge higher rates, perhaps differentiating the rates based upon the amount of exposure an app receives.
- Find a means to charge publishers based upon the revenues generated by the app. Using their own billing system is likely the best way of doing this.
Each approach has its own benefits and drawbacks, but I would be hard pressed to call any of them a racket.
izacus 1284 days ago [-]
The Apple/Epic hearing about this very issue had the judge say several times that they don't really see a big issue. So waiting for your regulators to do anything is very optimistic.
kkarakk 1284 days ago [-]
if you own the platform you DO own the apps and the users...
parasubvert 1284 days ago [-]
It’s not a racket, it’s their store, and thus their rules.
Regulators won’t act on this until it’s decided that App Stores are public utilities. Which might happen, but also would be a bit of an overreaction.
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
Seems like a relatively minor change -- services can still collect payment elsewhere. For example, I can upgrade my Netflix without Google getting a fee under the new(ly enforced old) rules. This only affects initial signups where the customer hasn't yet provided payment instrument info to Netflix.
You can imagine Netflix paying commission on in-app sign ups and then emailing the customer to beg them to hand over a CC# in exchange for a free month or something.
TooCreative 1284 days ago [-]
What is the state of other operating systems on Android devices?
Since Mobian is bringing Debian to phones, I am playing with the idea to try it.
How easy/hard is it nowadays to just go to a store, buy a nice phone, go home and put Mobian on it?
I am not talking about how nice the phone experience is. Just how easy/hard the switch to Mobian would be.
I'm fully aware that Mobian is brand new. But I would like to have a phone where I can play with it and watch it's progress.
ryukafalz 1284 days ago [-]
>How easy/hard is it nowadays to just go to a store, buy a nice phone, go home and put Mobian on it?
I don't want to say impossible, because that's not quite true, but close to. Mobian runs pretty much a stock Linux kernel, and there are only two recent devices on the market designed to do that: the PinePhone and the Librem 5. The alternative is to use libhybris to run on top of an Android kernel (including all the proprietary drivers needed for a typical Android phone), but... that's really something the distro developers would have to do, not you as a user.
Some Android devices are now mostly bootable with mainline Linux or something close to it (PostmarketOS has done a lot of great work here), but these are typically devices that are several years old, not the kind of thing you'd go out and buy in a store.
In short: unless the device you buy happens to be a PinePhone or Librem 5 or you are a dedicated kernel hacker or distro developer... no chance, for the vast majority of recent devices you might buy.
TooCreative 1284 days ago [-]
Would I be able to put Mobian on the phone in the first place? How would I do that? Is there a button combination or something that tells android phones to boot from an external media?
Iolaum 1284 days ago [-]
As a pinephone owner I can tell you that non android based Linux phones are years away from having a feature set that would make them acceptable for a general consumer.
I d definitely recommend the pinephone for playing with it and watching it's progress though ;)
TooCreative 1284 days ago [-]
As I said, for me it is not about the experience. I just want to run Linux on my phone and be part of the journey. If I have a working terminal, that would already be cool.
The thing with the PinePhone is that it is not very easy to buy. Say I get used to the PinePhone as my daily driver for having a terminal in my pocket. And then it breaks. Then I am f*cked and have to wait weeks or months for a new one to ship from Hong Kong.
If we were at the point were I can just go to a store, buy a phone and put Linux on it - I would start right now.
tpxl 1284 days ago [-]
Years away? Nah. The PinePhone was literally useless as a phone at the start of the year, now I'm close to mainlining it. As long as calling/SMS/internet works it's good enough for me.
archi42 1284 days ago [-]
What they say doesn't sound too bad, but: 1. They can say pretty much everything, but then behind the scenes work towards the opposing goal (and, 30% of every sale is a pretty good reason to do so) and 2. as others pointed out, Epic already realized selling Fortnite outside the Play Store was a futile endeavor.
I mean, how many here are using F-Droid over the Play Store? And we're not exactly your average persons...
bogwog 1284 days ago [-]
> Today, Netflix, Spotify, and other big services do not use Google Play In-app Billing. Consumers directly enter their credit card information with that third-party. As such, those services get the entire cut of the payment/subscription. Google says this is the case with “less than 3% of developers with apps” on the Play Store.
I wonder what percentage of customers use third party payment processors?
anaganisk 1284 days ago [-]
Huh, people get so wild about Apple, but Google takes your money and also sells your data. The saying "you are the product if the service is free" doesn't stand with Google.
jart 1284 days ago [-]
Share more details. That would be a scandal if it's true, since it directly contradicts their public claims. http://archive.is/hF78v
You say it like Facebook should be allowed to take data?
bluedays 1284 days ago [-]
This somehow feels related to the outcome of Epic v Apple.
harry8 1284 days ago [-]
Google and Apple are duopoly for smartphones which basically everyone has and needs to get on with modern life.
The duopoly means we get a race to the bottom. "Oh they got away with that, ok we'll do it to and then try going further in the ripoff."
We badly need real competition. The N900 was better than android back in the day. No locked in store. Microsoft killed it, I wish someone with money picked it up to hold their middle finger to apple and google. Maybe pine etc will get it done, but it seems like trying to fight a tank batallion with bb guns. Nokia got the N900 to the point where it was comparably as good in some ways, better in others. Microsoft utterly failed in their attempt but killed maemo and here we are commenting that their is no bottom on this race with both of the duopoly options equally repulsive.
parasubvert 1284 days ago [-]
Not going to get much competition if folks keep arguing for public utility regulation of App Stores. Consent decrees and regulated markets never work out the way you’d expect.
sidibe 1284 days ago [-]
The statement is basically meeting all of Epic's problems, they are solidifying that they will treat everyone the same (take the 30%) and promising to improve life for third party app store. Follow-through remains to be seen
mdoms 1284 days ago [-]
Well Apple has been getting away with it for years and American regulators are completely asleep at the wheel, so why leave all that money on the table?
danielscrubs 1283 days ago [-]
Android has 86% marketshare so it makes regulators nervous.
dmitriid 1284 days ago [-]
And Nintendo. And Sony. And Microsoft. And Steam. And...
durovo 1284 days ago [-]
And Steam?
dmitriid 1284 days ago [-]
Steam takes a 30% cut and doesn't let you use your own payment processor when selling through Steam.
gamblor956 1284 days ago [-]
Steam competes against GoG, Epic's game store, Ubisoft's game store, Microsoft's store, EA's game store, Blizzard's game store...
If you have an issue with Steam's cut you can simply sell on one of its competitors. Many companies do.
d1zzy 1283 days ago [-]
Yet Steam has a much larger share of the digital PC games market than Apple has of the smartphone market and the latter is being sued for anti-competitive practices while the former isn't.
dmitriid 1283 days ago [-]
Yes it does compete, but it's a very minor distinction in this case, IMO. And completely ignores everything else in my list.
akmarinov 1284 days ago [-]
iOS has Android? If you have issues, sell on Android.
Leherenn 1284 days ago [-]
I can use the same device/OS to install GoG or whatever.
I need to spend hundreds to get a new device to use Android.
I'd say that's a fairly big difference. Whether that's enough to be considered a different market, I do not know, that's for regulators to say.
dmitriid 1282 days ago [-]
Judge's opinion [1]:
--- start quote ---
Walled gardens have existed for 4 decades. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all had/have them. “What Apple is doing is not much different … they created a platform.”
“The 30% of what you complain seems to be the industry rate, right? Steam charges 30%. Microsoft: 30% … If you go to consoles: PlayStation, Xbox Nintendo all charged 30%. Physical stores: GameStop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart all charge 30%. Apple and Google charged 30%. It’s all 30%, and you just want to gloss over it. You don’t want to address it,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers says
And resolve chargebacks with non-existent Customer Care or is that going to be another plan for devs to buy?
geogra4 1284 days ago [-]
Is there a point where Microsoft brings back windows mobile? Or maybe Amazon has a go at a mobile os?
eqtn 1284 days ago [-]
I would say microsoft should make an awesome Android store for Android 12+ and lure developers and device manufactures in.
geogra4 1284 days ago [-]
Could they fork and brand android like they did with edge and chrome?
mobilio 1284 days ago [-]
As developers we all know that one day this MAY come.
So don't be "surprised" please!
babesh 1284 days ago [-]
They’ve been strongly encouraging larger developers to do this for years.
karmasimida 1284 days ago [-]
What about Amazon shopping?
jasongi 1284 days ago [-]
It's only "digital goods"
karmasimida 1284 days ago [-]
Amazon has digital goods right?
Songs/Movies/Digital Game code
kkarakk 1284 days ago [-]
Trying to get a Prime subscription through the app sends you to a webpage right now.
Always wondered why Google was cool with that...
onetimemanytime 1284 days ago [-]
at some point, Android and iPhone become like Windows, just a gateway to the internet and they can't really force much. Can you imagine Windows requiring a cut from app subscriptions?
sova 1284 days ago [-]
So Apple, Google, and Steam all take a 30% developer cut. Normally we'd say "economics will drive this down" but is it not more reminiscent of a cartel with price-fixing behind-the-scenes?
stefan_ 1284 days ago [-]
Which billing system is that, even? Google must have at least three concurrent payment systems, with another one launched as one is deprecated every year.
logicOnly 1284 days ago [-]
This is a dangerous move. Android users are not Apple users.
They are much more willing to research and change services based on price and performance.
I wonder if this could be the point Google loses their grip.
Oricle 1284 days ago [-]
Jewgle
Every fucking time!
This above phase you have probably seen, or will see Alot!
Because when you follow the money, or links between atrocities of the world, you will always find a jew behind it!
Every
Fucking
Time
!
rhizome 1284 days ago [-]
Ah, this must be why they added the ridiculous complication to taking screenshots.
drivebycomment 1284 days ago [-]
Genuinely curious. What complication? And what does screenshot have to do with the billing change?
radley 1284 days ago [-]
This is an interesting play and a signal that Google wants out of the app store game.
Keep in mind Google is supposedly opening up Android to better support third-party app stores.
Essentially, these two changes will motivate major apps like Netflix, Fortnite, Spotify, Tinder, etc to leave the Play Store next year (before the deadline).
They may start their own stores (like Epic), but they could also be available as exclusives for a major new, third-party Android app store (probably already in development). In turn, more app devs will jump ship and the Play Store could be a ghost town by the end of 2022.
CameronNemo 1284 days ago [-]
Can you actually have automatic updates for other app stores? Even on 3 year old phones that do not get updates anymore? Because it that is not the case, a lot of users will continue to prefer the Play Store.
kelnos 1284 days ago [-]
The article talks about Google working to make it easier for users to install 3rd-party app stores; I'd hope that allowing automatic updates would be a part of that.
Unclear if Google would be able to ninja that in to older phones as a Play Services update. My guess is that they probably couldn't since that's pretty fundamental to the OS's permissions system.
kuschku 1284 days ago [-]
They could offer a Play Services API that allows app stores to update apps which the user previously installed through them.
As Play Services already has an API and the permissions to replace installed apps (although this API is currently only available to the Google Play Store), and as Android already tracks from where an app was installed, this would be easily possible.
But knowing Google, they won’t allow this.
radley 1284 days ago [-]
That's a Google / Play Store limitation, not a technical one.
CameronNemo 1284 days ago [-]
I thought it has to do with how AOSP/ROMs work.
radley 1284 days ago [-]
"An app downloaded from Google Play may not modify, replace or update its own APK binary code using any method other than Google Play's update mechanism."
It is still an OS level restriction too. There is no way to install an application without prompting the user except through "system" app stores currently. To test: you can install a vanilla Lineage OS ROM that does not have Google Play Services/Store, and then install the F-Droid application. F-Droid will not be allowed to install applications unless you (a) allow installing applications from untrusted sources (yeah, you cannot even say that F-Droid is the only trusted source, you just have to open it up all the way) and (b) you manually approve the installation of any APKs (including) updates that are installed via F-Droid.
camhart 1284 days ago [-]
Android 12 with its app store friendly change most likely won't be released until August 2021... so claiming they'll have an alternative store ready before the Sept 2021 deadline (not to mention no app updates starting Jan 2021) is unlikely.
radley 1284 days ago [-]
Epic already has their own store. The real question is how will Netflix and Spotify pivot? Will they turn their apps into some form of store to allow their own payment mechanism? Or will they turn to a third party store?
> no app updates starting Jan 2021
What's that? I haven't heard anything about that date.
In the email I received today from Google Play it states:
"Any existing app that is currently using an alternative billing system in violation of this policy will need to remove it to comply with this update. For these apps, we are offering an extended grace period until September 30, 2021 to make any required changes. New apps submitted after January 20, 2021 will need to be in compliance."
radley 1284 days ago [-]
Their developer blog goes further:
"But for those who already have an app on Google Play that requires technical work to integrate our billing system, we do not want to unduly disrupt their roadmaps and are giving a year (until September 30, 2021) to complete any needed updates."
This means Netflix, Spotify, and even Apple have a year to find another solution / store.
1283 days ago [-]
jariel 1284 days ago [-]
You'd be surprised at how valuable a position is within Play store. It's like default search: if 'something else comes up, they click it'.
Obviously if people can't find Netflix, they're going to think 'whats up' and try to find it, but that comes with hurdles and it won't be good, it will mean lost downloads at some rate.
radley 1284 days ago [-]
I'm familiar - I had a top 15 paid app for a few years. That position drove all of our sales.
fendy3002 1284 days ago [-]
They try to follow Apple's way. If that's the case nothing will prevent google from shipping newest Android with exclusive play store and non installable apk, making it closed environment.
srtjstjsj 1284 days ago [-]
> Keep in mind Google is supposedly opening up Android to better support third-party app stores.
Has the US and EU just given up on anti-trust at this point?
What Apple and Google are doing here is racketeering.
There's no inherent NEED for app stores. The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly.
Apple disabling 3rd party downloads on their phones is just creating an artificial market that wouldn't exist normally - AKA the literal definition of racketeering.
We're about to release an app on iOS and Google and we'll probably just have to yield to their rules but we're going to really make a stink over this and write letters to congress and the EU saying we believe this should be illegal.
judge2020 1284 days ago [-]
> The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly.
Only after you bought your antivirus from your local best buy valid for 3 years. Even now, Windows might as well be an app store but blacklist-based instead of whitelist-based since MSFT can effectively kill any app they want by adding it to their smartscreen filters.
nitinreddy88 1284 days ago [-]
This is a pretty bad comparison logic. Windows allows you to disable anything through settings and registry keys which doesnt require any rooting/violation of support terms, which is never ever supported in Android/Apple.
Polylactic_acid 1284 days ago [-]
Android and iOS are inherently more secure at the OS level. Sideloading a 3rd party iOS app would not expose your password for your bank app. It may contain adult content in adverts or expose your card details you type in to it but it will never require windows style anti virus programs.
d1zzy 1283 days ago [-]
Not so sure about that. The truth is most users cannot be trusted to make good informed security decisions for themselves.
As technical people we are instinctively infuriated when we aren't given a choice but for most users that's the best option. That's why the iPhone has a much smaller history of apps (and their installed base) that steal user data than Android's. Because too many users see some shiny exciting app description and click OK when the system asks them "are you sure to install this app? it's going to read your contacts, access storage, make phone calls and send SMS, etc".
scarface74 1284 days ago [-]
Are you also saying sideloading an Android app wouldn’t cause a security issue? Maybe if you just sideloaded from a trusted source?
I have read this a few times and its still not clear what the issue was. There are a lot of vague statements like "sneakily replace the real Fortnite app with a fake one after security checks were already complete" What "security check" is this talking about.
My best guess is this,
Epic app installer downloads an apk to the disk, malware app already installed swaps the apk with its own while its on disk, epic installer uses android system prompt to install the swapped apk.
From what I can see, this doesn't give any extra permissions that a normal sideloaded app would not have access to. The worst I can see is that the swapped apk grabs your payment details you enter in the app which was always possible as I pointed out.
scarface74 1284 days ago [-]
The actual security issue with a proof of concept explanation.
Ok thats a little more enlightening. It seems my initial guess was mostly correct. The bypassed "security" features means bypassing epics installer verification and not any android security features and the comments on the android permissions point to api version 22.
Api version 23 added a new permissions model where instead of an app asking at install time what permissions are needed, a modal would show when the permission was used.
So there is nothing particularly horrible going on. Androids security and permission model was never broken. The user would see a modal at install time with all the permissions requested so there is no bypass of this.
In the end the data and integrity of your other apps is still protected and the worst case is you installed a malware app which can read your photos and capture your input while using the app. But since you required a malware app already installed to pull this off then this is a double low risk issue. Its good that it was reported and fixed but it says nothing about the security of Android.
thrwn_frthr_awy 1284 days ago [-]
Do you remember having to download software from cnet or download.com or some other shareware site? It was not a great experience and much, much worse than the current app stores.
parasubvert 1284 days ago [-]
You have it completely backwards. Mobile phones rarely had 3rd party downloads until Apple created that market through the App Store.
It’s a retail markup with retailer restrictions for a captive market, which isn’t exactly new. It is a very well known and practiced economic model for 40+ years.
You’re free to try to declare it illegal (I think this would be a disaster) but thankfully I think the congress and EU might have bigger fish to fry.
a_imho 1284 days ago [-]
Yes, the powers which could regulate do not have any interest to do so.
Rendered at 03:37:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
[1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
If they really do follow through with reasonable support for other app stores, that will be a good thing.
It will better, but it’s hardly “good”. It would still mean that Google gets to decide exactly which rights and protections their competitors should have on Android.
It should be the other way around: government regulators (to protect the interests of consumers and the health of the free market) should decide how much power Google has over its competitors.
I'm not sure government regulation needs to enter the picture unless courts decide there's an anti-trust issue, which open 3rd part app stores might make less likely. For Android, at least. Good still would face anti trust problems in other areas.
That's not true. They still have the power to restrict a third party store whenever they want without any immediate repercussions.
Let's say they remove all of the scary popups that Android shows when you try to install apps outside of Google Play right now. That would be a big win for competitors. But then any time in the future, Google can decide to slowly bring back those popups under the guise of "protecting users" or some other FUD.
The problem is that we might not have a company like Epic in the future, which is very well funded, willing, and able to fight them in court. When Google starts slowly clawing back control, we'll see some people complain about it on the usual channels, but it's likely nothing will happen.
But Google can do any thing right? They could push an update that plays Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am.
What are you suggesting they do, and doesn't you argument apply to every software publisher?
Sure, but they are not incentivized to do that. Forcing out competitors is something they're directly incentivized to do because it makes them more money. You can't trust a company not to do what a company exists to do.
The problem is that Google (and Apple) are way too big and powerful, and their pursuit for higher profits is stifling competition, innovation, and hurting the economy.
> doesn't you argument apply to every software publisher?
Not every publisher is immune to market forces the way Google and Apple are. If Spotify started blasting Matchbox Twenty on full blast every night at 2am, they'd go out of business overnight. If Google did it, people would just put their phones in another room when they go to bed.
Then why even go through the motions of making life easier for app stores right now? Because of antitrust? I guess I'm just not sure why that would change later. Google will still be an antitrust target 5 years from now.
In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
We can only speculate. Maybe it's a reaction to the legal issues they're facing right now, both from the DOJ investigation and the Epic lawsuit? Or maybe it's a more cynical plan to kill competitors by letting them think it's smart to invest in a competing store now, only to claw back control in the future and force them to lose customers and go out of business?
Maybe the upcoming changes don't actually make life significantly easier for third-party app stores (AFAIK they haven't shown what the changes actually are), and this is just a BS move to make them look better in the short term.
> In an ideal world, what would you like Google to do here?
Google? Nothing. In an ideal world, tech giants wouldn't be allowed to self-regulate anymore. Google could do whatever they want, but sane and reasonable regulations would keep them in check.
I may be naive, but Google's move seems like evidence that the regulations are keeping them in check to some extent.
note that we still don't really know what exactly it is they're doing, since the blog post was vague on specifics. It could literally be nothing.
That's true even today - you can install whatever the hell you want on an Android device by merely toggling a button. You can even root it and go further - much easier for Pixels - sure some apps will refuse to work on rooted devices but that's hardly Google's fault.
What are you trying to demand here - complete anarchy like PCs? I am not sure that's a good thing.
I can because I'm a computer geek. The majority of the population wouldn't know how to or care to learn how to go through the trouble of enabling "unknown sources" and ignoring all the scary malware warnings. Without that population, the prospect of running a commercial third-party store is hopeless.
> complete anarchy like PCs?
What anarchy? Software distribution on PC is great because users can, and regularly do, go straight to the vendor's website to buy their software. There is no middle-man.
From the security side, since Android and iOS have had sandboxing built in from day one, the risk of downloading software from a random website is much lower than it is on Windows. It's not zero, but it is lower, and it's not that much riskier than downloading a random app on Google Play (which has always been filled with malware).
But lets say it's still too risky for some reason. Fine. That's what anti-virus software is for.
I am not sure that's a good thing for majority of the population. Sandboxing does nothing if you download untrusted apps and give them permission to send SMS or setup a VPN or do whole lot of damage. If you aren't a geek you are saying ok to anything any app asks.
Android actually optionally, with rightful warnings allows PC like anarchy for geeks - if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
People already say ok to anything any app asks on Google Play. That isn't a problem unique to competing app stores, it's a problem with Android's permissions UI/UX. Just look at any non-tech-savvy Android user's phone to see that "anarchy" is already the status quo.
> if you are arguing that should be the default I am not sure many people will agree with that.
The only arguments I've heard against it have been FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt)
You aren't just making an argument against google, your line if thinking would vilainize all platforms. At the same time that you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform. I fundamentally disagree. As-is, I think Android has exposure to anti-trust accusations. But an open system of allowing 3rd party app stores nullifies that. Of course they'll still have control, but the measure of abusing power isn't that you have it, it's how you use it. And Google might be smart enough to realize that their use of power until now has brought too much anti-trust scrutiny, and that needs to change. Or maybe they'll screw it up, but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad. That is a narrow view that assumes Google doesn't understand the dangerous position it's in right now.
That's not what I'm pointing out or focusing on.
> you're implying that no platform should be allowed to dictate what gets on the platform
I never said or implied that.
> but you seem to automatically believe whatever they do will be bad
I don't believe that, and have not said anything to suggest that I do.
The assumptions you are making about me or my argument to arrive at these conclusions seem to be inaccurate. I would be happy to continue this discussion, as long as you ask me to clarify something rather than attempt to arrive at your own conclusions, potentially derailing the whole conversation.
Proving a "trust" is a pretty arcane affair... and fairly tangential to actual monopoly issues.
In any case, available and viable are two different things. I doubt that they'd intentionally make them viable.
ndroid 9 released more than 2 years ago and is now and 52% of users are now on 9 or later whereas more like 80% are at least on 7 which was released 4 years ago.
https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions
Pragmatically if I was google I would SAY I am making it easier for users to do business with someone else while making it as daunting as possible to actually do so in order to pressure vendors to at best offer both their wares for sale on both stores if they want to actually have customers.
Your play store policy can then forbid say offering your goods for sale at a lower price elsewhere or advertising the existence of an alternative version in app on the play store version.
As long as you keep it available on the play store most users will check their first and you can keep the revenue in house without strictly forbidding competition.
For example, if we're talking about Fortnite, usage of the latest version is certainly higher than the general population. Older versions of Android are mostly used on cheaper devices, or users who seldomly upgrade their phone, and don't care that much about installing applications.
[1]https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/#how-do-i-ins...
"Google requiring Android apps on the Play Store"
Requiring all android apps (eg: from third party app stores, built in apps shipped with phones or from vendors) as implied by the HN title would be a huge leap and have a lot of implications. But this is not that. I'm very surprised though by this statement from their post about it:
> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months
That seems astonishingly low - while I understand the Play Store is very ad driven, I had thought IAP was still a decent component of monetization. From this it sounds like the Play Store is a bit of an advertising wasteland ... or am I misunderstanding?
That sounds like a cherry-picked number to downplay the change but:
1) That's 90,000 apps
2) The amount of revenue those apps (like Spotify and Netflix) generate is probably in the 10s or 100s of millions
I'd bet that some of the largest revenue apps are the ones using their own billing -- the devs who make low-revenue apps probably don't want to spend the time or money to set all that up.
Just like authentication, there will be abstraction libraries that take care of it soon enough, or somebody like stripe will build a SDK and do some consolidated billing management for you.
Want to prorate upgrades? Well google play doesn't offer that. Want to allow switching from monthly to annually? Does Apple offer that? Want to issue a partial refund? Want to credit an account? Etc.
It goes further, a customer emails and asks "how do I cancel?". Instead of having easy instructions for them, it's now a switch block for all the different IAP solutions. If that customer forgets how they signed up, now they need to dig through all the IAP steps for cancelling.
And it's not just Google Play and Apple. There's web, Windows store, amazon app store, android, ios, chrome payments (deprecated), something for linux, etc.
While revenuecat seems decent for Google/Apple, it doesn't touch any of the others.
I'm not saying it's not possible. All I'm saying is it's a whole lot of extra work just to allow the largest companies in the world to scalp 30% from an indie dev, and force a poor experience down users throats.
Abstractions are not excuse for the underlying payment grab both the vendors are forcing on the devs. Just saying such problems and abstractions are not new and indie devs will get some relief with an abstraction
So if you have a formula how the e.g. train service gets money from a selling tickets app for iOS in a country with zero iPhone presence, you have our attention.
https://deviceatlas.com/sites/deviceatlas.com/files/images/m...
I imagine there are a ton of garbage apps that were created automatically for spam, seo, whatever reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Lhqri8tZk
I've done it too.
I think Android App development culture is extremely different than iOS Development.
> That seems astonishingly low [...]
That depends. I would not be surprised if there were an order of magnitude more "developers with apps on the Play Store" than on the iOS store, simply because of the lower barrier to entry ($$ and lock in patterns pushed by Apple makes it harder to get started on iOS). So would that mean 3% is actually astonishingly high?
The important part of this discussion is not on the user side. Yeah they can sideload but really they won't do that because of IAP, of all things.
The important part of this discussion is on the developer side. Going through Google will mean they get to shape what apps developers can even economically build without falling back to sideloading (which just won't happen, see above) and we already see how "great" that in the iOS ecosystem.
Of course, you are in camp "IAP means clear and central subscription management, it's great for me!" then you might not care or even welcome this.
I happen to be in camp "What is good for the user should not be contingent on the business model allowing for a 30% cut going to google." There are and will be products/services users want, but not at 1.30 times the price, and those will simply become impossible now.
On the other hand... Let's just watch Rome burn and then see what we do with the ashes?
But just take stock of your surroundings. Think of everyone you know, and think who of them sideload apps on a regular basis. Now correct for the tech-affinity of your social surroundings (probably high if you hang out on HN...)
For me, only the most hard-core of my friends sideload at all. Everyone else goes with stock apps. So sideloading should be in the regime of "count the zeros before the first non-zero mantissa digit."
Don't confuse the US experience for the global one.
Instead of play store, "Default app store" to cover what ever comes with chinese phones.
Or, US and Europe, what percentage...?
Then again I guess you can interpret basically any fact in your favor if you prefer a certain interpretation.
edit: Also I might add that Google is almost certainly being disingenuous. They say that only 3% don't use the system say that includes "Netflix, Spotify, and other big services". It seems pretty obvious that it's not 3% of revenue. This explains that Google is actually doing this for money and simply lying about their intentions.
It’s not lying to promote other perspectives or positives - that’s called marketing.
It can only affect the apps that users don't know they need.
But for all those that might mistakenly look for it in the Play Store, you can have a stub app there that just redirects them (opens a browser page) to where to get the real, outside the store app,
There's no limit to interest to Netflix, Stranger Things won't watch itself.
* you don’t need Google to sign every app. You can allow external apks and even keep Play monitoring for malicious apps.
* you can add another App Store.
* the fact you can say a user there’s another purchase way and it is relevant information.
Android feels like a democratic country vs Apple’s meritocracy.
The past few years I’ve switched back to Apple. But I still miss the ability to just compile something and run it without it being expired after a week (Apple’s free developer certs expires after a week)
>“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” reads Epic’s statement. “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.”
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/21229943/epic-games-fortn...
Then Epic attempted to cut deals with device makers to preinstall their App Store on devices.
>Epic claims that Google forced phone manufacturer OnePlus to break off a deal that would have seen a special Fortnite launcher preinstalled on OnePlus phones — and demanded that another Android phonemaker, LG, abandon any plans to do the same.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
They've updated the rules. You will need to sign every app on Play Store with the certificate provided by Google. Just like on App Store.
You MUST register a namespace (com.mycompany.MyApp) and get a it a certificate from them.
For paid - that's 1YR for your app to run. For free - that's 1week for the cert.
There's no way running YOUR code on YOUR device without it being signed by Apple (or jailbreaking).
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
(They quoted it twice yet didn’t link to it - what’s up with that?)
> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months, and of this 3%, the vast majority (nearly 97%) already use Google Play's billing.
The only way I see to read that is: 97% of 3% already comply, and 3% of 3% don't comply.
They've been around for over a decade in various incarnations and they are always clunky, poorly designed and developed for the lowest common denominator.
And often what developers are vocal about wanting is anti-consumer e.g. most people like a single point for all subscriptions/payments.
And then they get into dispute with Google and get their account terminated as the result along with their only email etc etc. Thanks but no thanks. I do not know about most but personally I prefer freedom of choice.
While I am on the native side, what brings money home are cross platform projects, and for CRUD stuff mobile Web is just fine, provided one doesn't download a SPA over 3G to display static text.
Both have ensured that's the actual experience of using web app remain terrible on their platform.
The mobile market is not at all a competitive market and it's really starting to show.
This is not true at all - e.g. Samsung ships their own browser as default on all their devices.
Come on, not true at all ?
Admittedly Samsung might be able to ship with their browser as default. I don't remember what browser was the main one when I bought my last phone. They most definitely have to have Chrome installed (and probably as the system web view) like the rest of the Google apps if they want to ship with the Play Store.
I don't think it significantly impacts my main point.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/apple-vs-epic-hearing...
If we look at this plaintiff and industry, walled gardens have existed for decades, Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden... In this particular industry, what Apple is doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what [Epic is] asking me to do."
I know that the deep down answer is that many of the people in these discussions think gaming is frivolous. But my PS4 is objectively far, far more powerful than any phone I've ever had, and comes with a selection of applications beyond just games - a web browser, photo/video editor, music and video streaming, a social messaging system (and social network, via the third-party Twitch). And going by hardware alone, it would be capable of much more than that if only it wasn't so prohibitively expensive to develop for.
How is that so different from what the vast majority of people use their phones for? Yet people are far more up in arms about the $100 yearly fee for the Apple Developer Program than about the thousands of dollars ($2500 for a dev kit) it costs to even build and run a game on the PS4 (plus you have to be a registered company).
Why should an iPhone be treated as an open, general-purpose computing device if a PlayStation is not? Why should Apple be forced to make it one?
The two arguments I have seen seems pretty weak to me: they are not general-purpose computing device and that's how they make money. I think you debunk the former pretty well, and as for the latter they are not entitled to a specific business model.
Even then, I'd be okay with Sony offering an "unlocked" version of the PS4 that's blocked from accessing the PlayStation Network; modding offline, single-player games is not cheating in any real sense of the word, and then at least more hobbyists could develop and run things on it without committing to becoming capital-G Game Devs (or being game devs at all - there's plenty of space for regular apps as well).
At the very least, they should allow (easily) unlocking the bootloader and installing a different OS, even if it would mean that that particular console can never install Orbis OS (which funnily enough is based on FreeBSD) again. It frustrates me to no end that my PS4 will become effectively useless to me if I purchase a PS5, when it would make a perfectly good desktop with a wipe and a Linux install (some people have managed to hack this on older firmware).
That actually mirrors my stance on Apple - I have no problem with iOS as it exists, but I do have a problem with not having any other easy OS option on iDevices.
App stores are more like Zapier, where your customers can find you, but you have to follow Zapier’s rules because you’re using Zapier’s platform.
Our app is leveraging this "loophole" as we provide license keys for self hosting as part of purchasing the app. It's also a TWA and Google hasn't published ANY guidance on how to use a TWA with Google Play Billing. What are we supposed to do, get off Google Play?
So, yes, it will have an impact, but potentially not as great as it might seem.
Google play movies and tv - likewise, essential?
Google play music
Google Hangouts
The list goes on...
And you're telling me the manufacturer decided I can't rid myself of these and google are as suprised as I am about that? Really? I mean you can make the same argument with Apple. They're happy for you to install/uninstall whatever but the manufacturer did it their way.
(The difference is that APK is part of the RO partition which cannot be modified so that's the part that can't be cleaned up.)
The answer (as with most Mac-related things) is to disable System Integrity Protection. For some strange reason, most of the people who complain about the loss of their freedoms on macOS leave SIP enabled and I wonder why.
My current flow is: 1 tap purchase icon, 2 remember that I'm banned, 3 navigate to apps website and feel better about not losing the developer 30% of their revenue.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Now Google has several different ways to respond:
- Accept that this will happen and try to generate revenues based on other services. These services may be for developers, publishers, or consumers.
- Charge higher rates, perhaps differentiating the rates based upon the amount of exposure an app receives.
- Find a means to charge publishers based upon the revenues generated by the app. Using their own billing system is likely the best way of doing this.
Each approach has its own benefits and drawbacks, but I would be hard pressed to call any of them a racket.
Regulators won’t act on this until it’s decided that App Stores are public utilities. Which might happen, but also would be a bit of an overreaction.
You can imagine Netflix paying commission on in-app sign ups and then emailing the customer to beg them to hand over a CC# in exchange for a free month or something.
Since Mobian is bringing Debian to phones, I am playing with the idea to try it.
How easy/hard is it nowadays to just go to a store, buy a nice phone, go home and put Mobian on it?
I am not talking about how nice the phone experience is. Just how easy/hard the switch to Mobian would be.
I'm fully aware that Mobian is brand new. But I would like to have a phone where I can play with it and watch it's progress.
I don't want to say impossible, because that's not quite true, but close to. Mobian runs pretty much a stock Linux kernel, and there are only two recent devices on the market designed to do that: the PinePhone and the Librem 5. The alternative is to use libhybris to run on top of an Android kernel (including all the proprietary drivers needed for a typical Android phone), but... that's really something the distro developers would have to do, not you as a user.
Some Android devices are now mostly bootable with mainline Linux or something close to it (PostmarketOS has done a lot of great work here), but these are typically devices that are several years old, not the kind of thing you'd go out and buy in a store.
In short: unless the device you buy happens to be a PinePhone or Librem 5 or you are a dedicated kernel hacker or distro developer... no chance, for the vast majority of recent devices you might buy.
I d definitely recommend the pinephone for playing with it and watching it's progress though ;)
The thing with the PinePhone is that it is not very easy to buy. Say I get used to the PinePhone as my daily driver for having a terminal in my pocket. And then it breaks. Then I am f*cked and have to wait weeks or months for a new one to ship from Hong Kong.
If we were at the point were I can just go to a store, buy a phone and put Linux on it - I would start right now.
I mean, how many here are using F-Droid over the Play Store? And we're not exactly your average persons...
I wonder what percentage of customers use third party payment processors?
The duopoly means we get a race to the bottom. "Oh they got away with that, ok we'll do it to and then try going further in the ripoff."
We badly need real competition. The N900 was better than android back in the day. No locked in store. Microsoft killed it, I wish someone with money picked it up to hold their middle finger to apple and google. Maybe pine etc will get it done, but it seems like trying to fight a tank batallion with bb guns. Nokia got the N900 to the point where it was comparably as good in some ways, better in others. Microsoft utterly failed in their attempt but killed maemo and here we are commenting that their is no bottom on this race with both of the duopoly options equally repulsive.
If you have an issue with Steam's cut you can simply sell on one of its competitors. Many companies do.
I'd say that's a fairly big difference. Whether that's enough to be considered a different market, I do not know, that's for regulators to say.
--- start quote ---
Walled gardens have existed for 4 decades. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all had/have them. “What Apple is doing is not much different … they created a platform.”
“The 30% of what you complain seems to be the industry rate, right? Steam charges 30%. Microsoft: 30% … If you go to consoles: PlayStation, Xbox Nintendo all charged 30%. Physical stores: GameStop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart all charge 30%. Apple and Google charged 30%. It’s all 30%, and you just want to gloss over it. You don’t want to address it,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers says
--- end quote ---
[1] Quoted from https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/28/tech/apple-fortnite-epic-...
So don't be "surprised" please!
Songs/Movies/Digital Game code
Always wondered why Google was cool with that...
They are much more willing to research and change services based on price and performance.
I wonder if this could be the point Google loses their grip.
Every fucking time!
This above phase you have probably seen, or will see Alot!
Because when you follow the money, or links between atrocities of the world, you will always find a jew behind it!
Every Fucking Time !
Keep in mind Google is supposedly opening up Android to better support third-party app stores.
Essentially, these two changes will motivate major apps like Netflix, Fortnite, Spotify, Tinder, etc to leave the Play Store next year (before the deadline).
They may start their own stores (like Epic), but they could also be available as exclusives for a major new, third-party Android app store (probably already in development). In turn, more app devs will jump ship and the Play Store could be a ghost town by the end of 2022.
Unclear if Google would be able to ninja that in to older phones as a Play Services update. My guess is that they probably couldn't since that's pretty fundamental to the OS's permissions system.
As Play Services already has an API and the permissions to replace installed apps (although this API is currently only available to the Google Play Store), and as Android already tracks from where an app was installed, this would be easily possible.
But knowing Google, they won’t allow this.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-outlaws-android-app-upd...
> no app updates starting Jan 2021
What's that? I haven't heard anything about that date.
In the email I received today from Google Play it states:
"Any existing app that is currently using an alternative billing system in violation of this policy will need to remove it to comply with this update. For these apps, we are offering an extended grace period until September 30, 2021 to make any required changes. New apps submitted after January 20, 2021 will need to be in compliance."
"But for those who already have an app on Google Play that requires technical work to integrate our billing system, we do not want to unduly disrupt their roadmaps and are giving a year (until September 30, 2021) to complete any needed updates."
This means Netflix, Spotify, and even Apple have a year to find another solution / store.
Obviously if people can't find Netflix, they're going to think 'whats up' and try to find it, but that comes with hurdles and it won't be good, it will mean lost downloads at some rate.
What's that now?
What Apple and Google are doing here is racketeering.
There's no inherent NEED for app stores. The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly.
Apple disabling 3rd party downloads on their phones is just creating an artificial market that wouldn't exist normally - AKA the literal definition of racketeering.
We're about to release an app on iOS and Google and we'll probably just have to yield to their rules but we're going to really make a stink over this and write letters to congress and the EU saying we believe this should be illegal.
Only after you bought your antivirus from your local best buy valid for 3 years. Even now, Windows might as well be an app store but blacklist-based instead of whitelist-based since MSFT can effectively kill any app they want by adding it to their smartscreen filters.
As technical people we are instinctively infuriated when we aren't given a choice but for most users that's the best option. That's why the iPhone has a much smaller history of apps (and their installed base) that steal user data than Android's. Because too many users see some shiny exciting app description and click OK when the system asks them "are you sure to install this app? it's going to read your contacts, access storage, make phone calls and send SMS, etc".
https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/just-as-critics-feared-...
My best guess is this,
Epic app installer downloads an apk to the disk, malware app already installed swaps the apk with its own while its on disk, epic installer uses android system prompt to install the swapped apk.
From what I can see, this doesn't give any extra permissions that a normal sideloaded app would not have access to. The worst I can see is that the swapped apk grabs your payment details you enter in the app which was always possible as I pointed out.
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336
Api version 23 added a new permissions model where instead of an app asking at install time what permissions are needed, a modal would show when the permission was used.
So there is nothing particularly horrible going on. Androids security and permission model was never broken. The user would see a modal at install time with all the permissions requested so there is no bypass of this.
In the end the data and integrity of your other apps is still protected and the worst case is you installed a malware app which can read your photos and capture your input while using the app. But since you required a malware app already installed to pull this off then this is a double low risk issue. Its good that it was reported and fixed but it says nothing about the security of Android.
It’s a retail markup with retailer restrictions for a captive market, which isn’t exactly new. It is a very well known and practiced economic model for 40+ years.
You’re free to try to declare it illegal (I think this would be a disaster) but thankfully I think the congress and EU might have bigger fish to fry.