Thoughts on this?

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 55 points 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    You currently have to install F-Droid manually via APK. This change will allow F-Droid to be listed in the Google Play store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    with the caveat being F-Droid would have to comply with the new developer verification system

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    It would increase visibility of F-Droid (people that might have never heard of it might start seeing it in the Play Store) so I think they'll give in to Google's requirements even if they oppose them...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It would require either every app developer on F-Droid to comply as well, or for F-Droid to implement google play style app signing, both of which ive seen F-Droid maintainers being against.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It would require either every app developer on F-Droid to comply as well

    Has this been mentioned anywhere? I haven't seen it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Along with all the apps available through FDroid, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    That's a separate thing. As far as I know, there'll be no difference between third-party app stores installed via Google Play vs third-party app stores installed via APK in terms of the apps in the store itself.

    IIRC they're going to force verification for all apps but have an opt-out that you just need to do once, and wait 24 hours after enabling it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    There is real concern if they make it harder in the future but it's the same as just enabling developer options which is pretty easy. The target audience is phishing scams and people who have no idea what they're doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It's not really Fdroid complying so much as the developers signing the apps having registered with Google. Fdroid itself is unaffected by it except for having to sign their appstore binary. But they definitely are championing the side of the FOSS developer that's traditionally been their supplier, and it's how it's going to affect those devs that they're (rightly) up in arms on behalf.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago

    Unless they completely ditch (or be forced to ditch) the developer notarization crap they're pushing for, all these talks and "registered appstores" will stay just pure bullshit to distract you from what's important: https://keepandroidopen.org/

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    how does this square up against "keep android open"?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago*

    As far as I can see it doesn't improve that situation. The Google Play Store may be forced to list alternative app stores, but by default the only apps that will install on Android, no matter which store they are downloaded from, are those whose developer has registered with Google, and where Google has approved both the developer and the app. So Google can still censor any app or developer they (or the US Government) consider inconvenient.

    Google promises a slightly laborious workaround for this, but they don't say how long the workaround will remain available.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They don't care, but also they can point to AOSP being around. So "Android" is still "open", just making it harder and harder for it to be used without the Google Services (in addition to drivers needed for the crucial hardware bits OEMs use which are their own problems).

    Conspiracy theory kind of rant/headspace. I am kind of shocked that the Pixel devices still have easy boot loader unlocking and drivers to install AOSP or Linux based ROMs. Guessing they will lock those down like the OEMs at some point, and make "must have" features for the hardware not work if an "unverified" ROM is installed. Could also see them selling "dev unlocked" versions of the devices that are more expensive, and require the people buying them to get verified for apps at time of purchase (even if the person isn't planning on actually making apps).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Noooooooooo. They were suppose to kill each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    So how come epic can sue for stuff like this, but we can't sue for android to remain open? Is this just a question of having money to fund such a lawsuit?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • 6 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 20 points 3 months ago

    For access to the Google Play catalog of apps, Google will charge stores an annual fee of $5,000 for “security and policy reviews,”

    Lol, so this is only for businesses

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    If the Steam app lets users buy games that they can then play on Android through FEX, does that violate the ToS?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    I'm so fucking done with Google and their shit because this sounds totally plausible. This GrapheneOS pixel 8 will be the last time I use ANY Android device willingly. See y'all in !linuxphones@lemmy.ca

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I am looking forward to the day that GrapheneOS comes out on a non-Pixel phone like the upcoming Razor. Not sure when it will be out and hope it doesn’t get killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 5 comments in c/technology@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Didn’t Android always have third party app stores?

    I’ve been on iOS for a few years now, but having multiple install sources was always a thing on Android, I thought…

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago

    Consumers are lazy and big tech exploits it by creating just enough friction to keep them in semi-walled gardens. Enabling installing of an app that’s labeled as „file might be harmful” by enabling installation of „unknown apps” won’t stop my grandma from installing malware but it stops many from even bothering with alternative app stores.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    No, this is about official support from Google.

    Judge James Donato originally agreed that forcing Google to carry rival Android app stores within its own Google Play store, and share its own entire catalog of apps with those stores, would be the best way of undoing the company’s illegal monopoly over Android applications.

    ...

    there may be two different tracks for Android: stores-within-a-store in the United States, and Registered App Stores everywhere else.

  • source
  • parent