512
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 98 points 2 months ago

But third party stores are already allowed and supported on Android?

[-] shrugs@lemmy.world 166 points 2 months ago

"Allowed and supported" is something different then "its possible". The article mentions some points that seemingly haven't been "supported" in the past:

  • Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)
  • Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store
  • Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store
  • Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing

Google also can’t:

  • Share app revenue “with any person or entity that distributes Android apps” or plans to launch an app store or app platform
  • Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first
  • Offer developers money or perks not to launch their apps on rival stores
  • Offer device makers or carriers money or perks to preinstall the Play Store
  • Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores

Thanks Mr. Epic Judge

[-] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 78 points 2 months ago

WTF, they can rule Google can't offer perks for exclusivity, but epic does that shit with it's game store.

[-] commandar@lemmy.world 99 points 2 months ago

Because Google holds a monopoly position and Epic doesn't.

That said, the irony didn't escape me either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 months ago

So they will have the same judgement for apple right?? And not the same bullshit excuse that since it's even more locked down it's okay for them to do it?

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

Apple got away with it because they were VERY careful to go up to the line without crossing it as well as careful wording of things, unfortunately.

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 months ago

No, because apple's monopoly doesnt count because they're upfront about it being a monopoly.

Which is stupid, but that's how it works apparently

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

Play Store

This is all about the Play Store though, it has literally nothing to do with competing stores. I use F-Droid today and there are no restrictions from Google about what apps I can install through that store, whether I can pay for apps through that store (some apps have donation buttons inside), etc. There's nothing stopping Epic from distributing their own app store like F-Droid does even before this decision.

So I really don't understand what "cracking open Android" means here. All that seems to be happening is that Google is restricted from certain actions within its own store, which is absolutely fine by me (I don't use the Play Store), but I don't see any actual changes to Android or third-party app stores.

The closest is this one:

Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores

But Samsung already has its own app store, no? So is there any actual evidence that this was ever a thing?

They should place these restrictions on Apple, not Google, because Apple is the one doing all of this nonsense. Yeah, Google should be reigned in a bit, but they're really not the problem here.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

Yes but only through sideloading, this order requires Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed from within Play Store, i.e. you can search for "F-Droid" from directly within Play Store and install it.

Which also comes with a bit of a positive reputation to truly allow a competitor to rise. Before, non-technical people (read:the average person) saw sideloading as dangerous because of "viruses", which led to low uptake of Epics own store (Which they did try to distribute through sideloading)

Now if an average person sees F-Droid or other app store in the play store they're automatically going to think "It's in the Play Store and vetted by Google so it MUST be safe to check out"

[-] stsquad@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How can Google vet an app store without vetting everything it could serve?

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

That's just the perception with the average person, not that they would actually do it

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months ago

The difference here from my understanding of what I read was that you could now open the Google Play Store and type "fdroid" and the fdroid app could be installed with the single install button.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Yea that's exactly it, no more side loading needed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BenchpressMuyDebil@szmer.info 4 points 2 months ago

Did you know that if you use the "transfer data from my old phone to the new phone" thing, only the apps installed from Google Play will be carried over? That is, FDroid apps and their data will be lost.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] moon@lemmy.cafe 89 points 2 months ago

Tldr for those who are confused, since Android already does support side loading and even seamless updates for third-party app stores (like Droid-ify, etc), these are mostly legal changes.

Basically Google can't force Google IAP as the only method of payment in apps anymore, can't block companies from advertising how to find them on non-Play Store android app stores. So good changes overall.

Also when you download third party apks, on Android, while it's still relatively easy to do, it does give bit of a scary warning saying security issues are on the user for doing so. This creates the assumption that Play Store is the only secure way to get apps on Android, and the OS gives all sorts of special security exceptions to the Play Store for that. Obviously other secure app stores can exist, so this can be seen as an anti-competitive method since Google is exempt from their own scary apk install message.

[-] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

COOL, cool…. Hay why was the exact opposite ruled for apple?

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

The biggest reason is most likely that the cases had different judges.

[-] wax@feddit.nu 13 points 2 months ago

Apple produces hardware for their walled garden, whereas Google imposes their terms on third parties. I can't speak to how this works legally, but thats the main difference as far as I understand.

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It’s no longer an excuse for Apple. Since the EU’s ruling they now have to allow third party stores there: https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110 and of course they’ll fight tooth and nail against it here, the infrastructure exists so many of their previous arguments around not doing it are moot

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How the judges see it:

Google forces conditions onto other OEMs. They have to include a bunch of Google stuff on their phones if they want the play store and play services, which they realistically need, that's just a market reality. They have no real choice but to do whatever Google says. Google is abusing their market dominance to push their ecosystem, and the OEMs have no real choice but to play ball.

Apple doesn't force anybody else to use their products. They make their own ecosystem for their own phone. If iOS was available on non-Apple devices, and Apple was forcing stuff onto those OEMs knowing they have little other choice, Apple would be getting the same treatment.

[-] bastionntb@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Would like to know the answer, but feel like I already know.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago

This is a wild downplay of this.

The judge is forcing Google to let third party app stores sell and distribute all the apps in the Google Play Store. That s massive.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That means get rid of that fucking anti-sidoading shit they're flirting with.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

My initial reading of the reporting on this ruling suggests it won't do that. App developers can opt out of most of the provisions, but Google may not pressure them to do so.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 56 points 2 months ago
[-] kautau@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Especially because they already have the infrastructure to do so with the EU’s ruling, so they can’t make any claims about it not being secure or that it’s not possible

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 41 points 2 months ago

If that makes it even easier to get F-Droid installed for the masses, I'm all for it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Jocker@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 months ago

wording "crack open" doesn't seems appropriate

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

next you're going to tell me 'side loading' and 'backdoor access' sound naughty

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] anas@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

that is an epic judge right there

[-] sudo@lemmy.today 5 points 2 months ago
[-] bitwolf@lemmy.one 14 points 2 months ago

They got the wrong phone OS...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

XDA-CHADS, TODAY WE WILL REMIND THEM.

[-] skymtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago

They need to do this on iOS Fr Fr

[-] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

What jurisdiction in this?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
512 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

60142 readers
2192 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS