Rendered at 23:07:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ColdStream 20 hours ago [-]
It is funny how we have two storm fronts here. Google trying to lock down apps to only Google approved developers, and legal decisions to open up alternative app stores that would potentially use apps that are not Google approved.
One wonders which side will win this one? All I know is, I still want my F-Droid with apps that Google doesn't have power over.
inigyou 13 hours ago [-]
Both. If they copy Apple, which they will, you'll be able to install any app store but the app store will only be able to install Google-approved apps.
DANmode 10 hours ago [-]
and only in jurisdictions that have spent the time and money forcing them to do so.
kevincox 6 hours ago [-]
This storm fronts are really just Google trying to dig in as deep as possible.
On one end they are trying to fight the requirements for alternative app stores and making them as hard as possible to use.
On the other end they are trying to put hooks so that they can block installations of apps from other app stores.
Then they hope that regulation will take longer to dislodge the various methods they are using to retain control.
UncleMeat 8 hours ago [-]
These appear to be related. The requirement to open up to other app stores also came with a requirement that Google support those app stores with their (admittedly messy) malware detection. Suddenly Google is looking at requirements to review apps that they have way less information about. I can only imagine that the developer identification efforts are an attempt to make that easier.
15 hours ago [-]
lern_too_spel 19 hours ago [-]
HN in general has completely misunderstood app verification. App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store. It is a direct result of this ruling.
It's still possible to install any app with a warning. A future Google Android build will require developer mode to be enabled to install those apps. That is the problem to address, not app verification, which will be rolled out as a Google Play Services update to existing Google Android builds and makes it strictly easier to install apps than before.
crote 18 hours ago [-]
Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops. After app verification any app store can only install Google-blessed apps without having the user jump through crazy hoops.
App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
lern_too_spel 7 hours ago [-]
> Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops
After app verification, exactly the same. Nothing changes about what app stores can do.
> App verification does not "allow" anything
It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install. Prior to app verification , the user had to click through a dialog to go to settings to allow installation from the app that triggered the install.
> You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
Exactly right. The broader environment was that Google was forced to allow installation of apps outside of system app stores without the user having to tap through a warning dialog. This is the solution to that problem.
crote 7 hours ago [-]
> After app verification, exactly the same.
No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.
> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.
... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.
> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.
It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
lern_too_spel 7 hours ago [-]
> No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode,
As I said in my first comment, that change is separate from app verification.
> which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification
It was not. Read the rest of that sentence beginning with "without."
> App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
App verification is required to allow installing apps outside a system app store without any warning to the user, as required by the ruling.
chapz 17 hours ago [-]
App verification means, Google can deny apps entry into Android for whatever reason Google comes up with. There are no clear and objective rules nor are there any real options to object.
And that is the problem. Google can just deny anything that does stuff in a creative new way or that poses a competitive risk.
And, if Google decides you are not comming in, there is no warning you can click to go around that.
ColdStream 2 hours ago [-]
I do fear for all these youtube alternative app developers. If I was building them, no way am I handing over my personal ID to Google. They would leverage that almost immediately.
lern_too_spel 7 hours ago [-]
>App verification means, Google can deny apps entry into Android for whatever reason Google comes up with.
Two errors:
1. Google only gets to determine what app verification allows without warning on Google builds of Android.
2. You can still install unverified apps.
skeledrew 13 hours ago [-]
> App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store
Wrong. That's what the company wants. App verification isn't needed for anything, and a "rival app store" is just another app store and should be treated as such.
graceful6800 12 hours ago [-]
Sure, just like age verification is what allows governments to protect children, right?
lern_too_spel 4 hours ago [-]
HN in general gets AB 1043 wrong as well, so that's kind of similar. There is no verification of age involved.
NewJazz 19 hours ago [-]
What does app verification mean to you? Does it involve sending a copy of your ID to google? Because imho that alone is a problem.
lern_too_spel 4 hours ago [-]
> Because imho that alone is a problem.
That is already required to list an app on the Play Store. What app verification means is that if you've done that, you don't have to distribute through the play store. People can install your app (or app store) from your website and not get a scary warning about whether to allow installs for apps downloaded from your browser, as required by the judge's ruling. Nothing else changes. People who complain to their legislators about app verification will get laughed at. I already explained what they should complain about instead.
NewJazz 3 hours ago [-]
Why do you think it is your place to tell people where to prioritize their personal lobbying efforts?
Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
em-bee 9 hours ago [-]
the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google. if google is the only allowed arbiter of what may be installed then we are no better off then using the google play store, because i find it highly unlikely that google would approve an app that it would not allow on the play store as well. (ok, sure, an alternate app store would also get around google taking a 30% cut, but that's less important for me)
lern_too_spel 4 hours ago [-]
> the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google
No, the whole point of using an alternative app store is to get better deals for developers or end users. Apps that are not approved by Google can still be installed. The whole point of app verification is to allow installation outside a system app store (e.g., directly from a website or from another app store) without any scary warnings, as required by the judge's ruling.
rcxdude 42 minutes ago [-]
You say this like the scary warnings aren't an entirely artificial barrier by google. Before the app verification, I could install apps from freedroid just fine without any scary warnings.
Love it. The only problem is that they can just make this changes region-specific, like Apple has been doing with everything they didn't like being ordered to do. So in the end these international companies are minimally affected.
benoau 19 hours ago [-]
What a day for app store regulation: when it rains it pours as the saying goes.
jezek2 10 hours ago [-]
I don't know, here in the real world, so far the EU's regulations of Apple has shown Google that it can safely make Android a closed platform. Before there was uncertainty that Google didn't want to test. This is possible because EU don't care about "sideloading" and accept the security argument to allow gatekeeping by the device/OS makers.
Meanwhile Apple is having fun how to creatively pass the EU regulations while defeating every point of it in practical terms.
Maybe in a decade or two there will be something useful from this, but in the meantime it will be worse.
sgc 18 hours ago [-]
what else did I miss today?
benoau 11 hours ago [-]
Supreme Court rejected Apple's last chance to stay negotiating a fee for using 3rd party payments in apps based on costs, so Apple asked the judge to force Epic into settlement talks and proposed a commission of 5%-15% that ignores "costs" because there are none and they feel the court's instruction to base it on costs is invalid.
digitalPhonix 15 hours ago [-]
> “Have it done by a week from today”, he ordered
I’m glad judges are sick of their feet dragging. I’m sad it’s not happening to Apple too though.
p0w3n3d 18 hours ago [-]
Quoting BoJack Horseman ``You've been adjudicated''
kotaKat 13 hours ago [-]
Anyone else noticed that every single other company that had a bone to pick against Apple or Google (companies like Match and Spotify) haven't been saying shit lately about any of this?
It's always still just Epic Games being whiny and pissy?
Kinda weird. I guess once Spotify got 300+ million paid subscribers they lost the plot themselves on what they were fighting for (and haven't given us things like promised AirPlay 2 support still). I guess the Match Group found other ways to pry and extort money out of sad lonely people.
But Timmy? Oh, Timmy needs his 63% developer take of in-game purchases inside Fortnite. The kids need their skins!
inigyou 13 hours ago [-]
They're probably afraid to get banned by Google (which is guaranteed to happen and they did ban Epic), lose all their revenue and go out of business before the lawsuit finishes (Epic's is still going after years and years)
lern_too_spel 4 hours ago [-]
You're misremembering. Epic's entire developer account got banned by Apple.
Google removed one of Epic's apps (not the entire developer account) from the Play Store for violating policies that the judge has since struck down.
alightsoul 17 hours ago [-]
I am not sure I am against app verification. I almost installed an APK that was a banking infostealer. Is there really no other way? Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
graemep 17 hours ago [-]
That is exactly the problem a choice of app stores solves. Instead of downloading APKs you se stores you trust, and some store apps support multiple repos. Its a Linux like solution.
martheen 15 hours ago [-]
Android, at least those with Play Service, already have built-in scanning for APKs right now. The main problem is currently only Google can "trust" the dev signature for apps they release, so if an app or dev is in Google's naughty list, either for outright malware or for an adblocker, they're out.
At least there will be a setting for users to allow any app from any dev, which those who know about it will enable right away, and those who don't know about it have no business to use it anyway.
inigyou 13 hours ago [-]
There's definitely no way to prevent crime except for putting a surveillance camera in everyone's bathroom.
Ylpertnodi 9 hours ago [-]
Depends who is watching.
dTal 6 hours ago [-]
It could be Mister Rogers himself for all I fucking care, no cameras in the bathroom please.
crote 7 hours ago [-]
> Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
Oh, Android has this already! Third-party apps will still be subjected to the Google Play Protect scanning. Making sideloading needlessly difficult is done for business reasons, not device safety.
One wonders which side will win this one? All I know is, I still want my F-Droid with apps that Google doesn't have power over.
On one end they are trying to fight the requirements for alternative app stores and making them as hard as possible to use.
On the other end they are trying to put hooks so that they can block installations of apps from other app stores.
Then they hope that regulation will take longer to dislodge the various methods they are using to retain control.
It's still possible to install any app with a warning. A future Google Android build will require developer mode to be enabled to install those apps. That is the problem to address, not app verification, which will be rolled out as a Google Play Services update to existing Google Android builds and makes it strictly easier to install apps than before.
App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
After app verification, exactly the same. Nothing changes about what app stores can do.
> App verification does not "allow" anything
It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install. Prior to app verification , the user had to click through a dialog to go to settings to allow installation from the app that triggered the install.
> You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
Exactly right. The broader environment was that Google was forced to allow installation of apps outside of system app stores without the user having to tap through a warning dialog. This is the solution to that problem.
No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.
> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.
... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.
> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.
It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
As I said in my first comment, that change is separate from app verification.
> which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification
It was not. Read the rest of that sentence beginning with "without."
> App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
App verification is required to allow installing apps outside a system app store without any warning to the user, as required by the ruling.
And that is the problem. Google can just deny anything that does stuff in a creative new way or that poses a competitive risk.
And, if Google decides you are not comming in, there is no warning you can click to go around that.
Two errors:
1. Google only gets to determine what app verification allows without warning on Google builds of Android.
2. You can still install unverified apps.
Wrong. That's what the company wants. App verification isn't needed for anything, and a "rival app store" is just another app store and should be treated as such.
That is already required to list an app on the Play Store. What app verification means is that if you've done that, you don't have to distribute through the play store. People can install your app (or app store) from your website and not get a scary warning about whether to allow installs for apps downloaded from your browser, as required by the judge's ruling. Nothing else changes. People who complain to their legislators about app verification will get laughed at. I already explained what they should complain about instead.
Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
No, the whole point of using an alternative app store is to get better deals for developers or end users. Apps that are not approved by Google can still be installed. The whole point of app verification is to allow installation outside a system app store (e.g., directly from a website or from another app store) without any scary warnings, as required by the judge's ruling.
Meanwhile Apple is having fun how to creatively pass the EU regulations while defeating every point of it in practical terms.
Maybe in a decade or two there will be something useful from this, but in the meantime it will be worse.
I’m glad judges are sick of their feet dragging. I’m sad it’s not happening to Apple too though.
It's always still just Epic Games being whiny and pissy?
Kinda weird. I guess once Spotify got 300+ million paid subscribers they lost the plot themselves on what they were fighting for (and haven't given us things like promised AirPlay 2 support still). I guess the Match Group found other ways to pry and extort money out of sad lonely people.
But Timmy? Oh, Timmy needs his 63% developer take of in-game purchases inside Fortnite. The kids need their skins!
https://www.epicgames.com/site/news/apple-terminated-epic-s-...
Google removed one of Epic's apps (not the entire developer account) from the Play Store for violating policies that the judge has since struck down.
At least there will be a setting for users to allow any app from any dev, which those who know about it will enable right away, and those who don't know about it have no business to use it anyway.
Oh, Android has this already! Third-party apps will still be subjected to the Google Play Protect scanning. Making sideloading needlessly difficult is done for business reasons, not device safety.