this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
449 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59179 readers
2454 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, It's a bit more complicated than that though. The service your referring to is called Google App Service (sometimes just called App Services) and is required for certain functions. Mostly to do with API calls to Google servers, so it makes sense that they would need to be verified. It ain't as anti-competitive as it first sounds, it's actually very reasonable.

There are also some apps that have versions that don't need Google App Services in order to run, they use alternate open source solutions. The version designed to run on Google's app store requires Google App Services, the other versions don't. The problem comes if people try and sideload the wrong version.

If the app does not require App Services then it doesn't matter what platform it's installed from.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm going one step further, it's not just Google app services that is the problem. What they're catching fire for currently is the Google Integrity api, as Google is refusing to whitelist third-party ROMs onto the API which means that secure apps such as banking apps will use that API are not able to be run on third party custom roms. Their argument is since they can't validate the security of the ROMs they refuse to integrate them, however there are a few projects including graphene OS that has done everything that they can to keep it a secure minimalistic environment but because it's not Google they won't whitelist it. It's definitly anti-competitive.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I understand, but the trouble is it's not a totally unreasonable argument from their point of view. They are been asked to essentially put their seal of approval on something they have no real control over.

Perhaps the solution is to have some sort of agreement where any compromises that result from third-party ROMs, are not Google's responsibility and are they should be legally protected. I'm sure that the lawyers are the main reason for this position by Google.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

the thing is, even if they did cause issues, the seal means nothing, Google is going to deny all liability anyway. This is just Google being petty and blocking third party's imo

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

This is the main thing preventing me, and probably a good amount of other folks, from using alternative roms. If I can get all the apps I need to run, then I can't use the rom, even if I would prefer it.