▲ 26 ▼ Court Orders Google to Fix Play Store Prompts Within 7 Days (www.iphoneincanada.ca) submitted 3 months ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/boycottus@lemmy.ca comment fedilink hide all child comments
[+] wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) In Canada, yes but this has no effect anywhere else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lemmysmash@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) It seems like that was a US Federal Court. So should be apllied at least to the whole US, unless/until those fuckers will find some loophole. It doesn't seem like it has to do anything with the lockdown, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago I see, I kept seeing mention of Canada, so made the incorrect assumption. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrchampion@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago I read the article, and, as much as I'd love for what you said to be true, I don't think it is. It's specifically about the google play store adding barriers to make it harder to install competing app stores. Regular apps only require a "one-tap to install", but app stores require you to specifically hit View then scroll to find the Install button. It's not many more steps, but it's also unfair treatment. This court order aims to fix that. Again, really hoped it was about the sideloading "ban", but it's not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) In Canada, yes but this has no effect anywhere else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lemmysmash@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) It seems like that was a US Federal Court. So should be apllied at least to the whole US, unless/until those fuckers will find some loophole. It doesn't seem like it has to do anything with the lockdown, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago I see, I kept seeing mention of Canada, so made the incorrect assumption. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lemmysmash@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) It seems like that was a US Federal Court. So should be apllied at least to the whole US, unless/until those fuckers will find some loophole. It doesn't seem like it has to do anything with the lockdown, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago I see, I kept seeing mention of Canada, so made the incorrect assumption. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schwim@piefed.zip 1 point 3 months ago I see, I kept seeing mention of Canada, so made the incorrect assumption. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrchampion@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago I read the article, and, as much as I'd love for what you said to be true, I don't think it is. It's specifically about the google play store adding barriers to make it harder to install competing app stores. Regular apps only require a "one-tap to install", but app stores require you to specifically hit View then scroll to find the Install button. It's not many more steps, but it's also unfair treatment. This court order aims to fix that. Again, really hoped it was about the sideloading "ban", but it's not. permalink fedilink source parent
no comments (yet)