this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
512 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
3700 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes but only through sideloading, this order requires Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed from within Play Store, i.e. you can search for "F-Droid" from directly within Play Store and install it.
Which also comes with a bit of a positive reputation to truly allow a competitor to rise. Before, non-technical people (read:the average person) saw sideloading as dangerous because of "viruses", which led to low uptake of Epics own store (Which they did try to distribute through sideloading)
Now if an average person sees F-Droid or other app store in the play store they're automatically going to think "It's in the Play Store and vetted by Google so it MUST be safe to check out"
How can Google vet an app store without vetting everything it could serve?
That's just the perception with the average person, not that they would actually do it
Honestly, I don't really agree with that. I don't think Google should be forced to allow any app onto its store, provided there's an alternative way users can get that app.
I installed F-Droid from its website and I've installed other apps directly from their respective websites, just like I normally would on a PC. I don't see any reason for Microsoft, for example, to allow competing stores to be distributed in their Windows Store (or whatever they call it now).
The whole concept of "sideloading" is just a marketing gimmick for doing the same thing people normally do on other devices. It's stupid and unfortunately really effective, so maybe they should get fined for that as well. But I don't think that means Google should be forced to accept any apps that it doesn't want to distribute.
@sugar_in_your_tea @cm0002 That's the thing: Microsoft Store allows you to download Epic Games Store, Battle.net and Ubisoft Connect from their store. I don't see anything bad with being able to download F-Droid from Google Play, as long as there's a way to protect it from impersonators or malicious apps.
Can confirm, I just pulled up Epic Games Store from within the MS Store lol
And on top of that, this isn't some startup who has to depend on every dollar, even if you're right @[email protected] this is fucking Google with a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR market cap they can lose some revenue to make room for some competition even if it's a tad unfair.
I'm not shedding any tears for Google, but we shouldn't be doing things just because we don't like the person or group being impacted.
I absolutely hate Google and have spent a lot of time de-Googling my life. But when it comes to legal precedent, I think we should be very careful.
True, but legal precedents can be nuanced
For example, that whole litmus test with the three questions to determine if something is art or pornographic or obscene was borne out of a legal precedent.
So something similar could come out of this, where it's only applicable if the company in question is X market cap and controlling Y percentage of the market segment or whatever. It doesn't have to nor should be an all or nothing kinda thing
I suppose that's fair, I'm just concerned that smaller orgs will be caught in the crosshairs, while larger, better funded orgs find the loopholes. In general, my opinion is that the simpler the rules are, the less likely for your average small org to get screwed, because they're playing by the same, simple rules as the larger orgs.
In this case, if I create an Android competitor and my income stream depends on revenue from my app store, would I be expected to support the Play Store if it can run it? I think Google would have a valid argument here if they're forced to support my store on their platform. Or maybe I can start w/o it, but if I get past a certain amount of sales, I would have to, which could mean that I still get screwed once I hit that threshold.
So I'm skeptical and would need to see the law first. I just think, in general, we shouldn't be making policy as a knee-jerk reaction to orgs we don't like. For example, I think the TikTok ban is dangerous precedent, despite loathing TikTok.
I don't see a problem with F-Droid being available on Google Play, I just don't think it should be a requirement to allow competitors' app stores in their app store.
That said, it's interesting that Microsoft Store allows alternative stores. I've avoided the Microsoft Store like the plague, so that's cool. Maybe that's a good argument for Google being required to follow suit. Idk, I just don't like the idea of an app store being forced to support direct competitors, that seems like a conflict of interest and I honestly wouldn't trust that store to be consistently up-to-date.
Maybe yeah, it’s so so fast to search “F-Droid” & hit download. Even prompts (at least on some Android versions) to allow installation and takes you right to settings.
Legislating incentives & payments is interesting, but not sure it’s a huge deal to do the very fastest search with the included web browser and then be able to install just about anything afterwards.
Don’t like all the bloatware that some manufacturers stealthily install and the nag notifications that can’t be disabled but those are separate issues.
Exactly. We should make rules about scary prompts and whatnot, I'm just hesitant about requiring an app store to distribute apps it doesn't want to for whatever reason, whether that's an ideological, technical, or competitive reason.
Where does it say in the ruling that the play store has to host and distribute other stores in the ruling? I didn't notice anything in there about that.
It's...in the first paragraph
Wow. That's brutal.