this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
292 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59466 readers
3159 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
[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 72 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Who gives a fuck about Google? They pull the same shit whenever they get the chance.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 61 points 9 months ago

Except they actually don't in this case. You're free to release a browser with any engine you choose on Android and distribute it through the Play Store.

[–] 520@kbin.social 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They literally don't though. They don't try to police sideloaded apps or georestrict other browsers

[–] gray@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] dai@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My takeaway from that article is they don't, and haven't.

The splash screen for installing a package not from the play store is there to protect the end user. Without it there would probably be a much worse unwanted software issue on android.

I've been "side loading" or just "installing" applications on my android devices since the nexus one, without the help of the play store.

[–] gray@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That’s not what the lawsuit is about. Google made backdoor deals to pay developers to release on the play store instead of their own 3rd party app store. They were found at fault for anti-competitive behavior.

[–] Flipper@feddit.de 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's a pot calling a kettle black. Epic is doing the same thing with there store.

[–] dai@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You posed a question about Google policing sideloading, then posted an article that has nothing to do with google policing side loading.

🤷‍♂️

[–] 520@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They don't. They discourage it on the consumer end, but that also has good safety reasons behind it. They go a little too far in pushing people to Play Store over other app stores, and require basically any phone with Google Services to have Play Store, but that's a different matter.

They've never tried to dictate rules on what sideloaders, both on the supplier and consumer side, can and can't do like Apple has.

The closest they've ever done to this is use Play Protect against apps like Lucky Patcher. And that's a piracy app that, among other things, patches other applications to do things like bypass Google's payment systems and disable ads.

[–] HelloHotel@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thats absolutely correct, around android 6, it got real annoying to install 3rd party apps, settings called it somthing like "install apps from places other than the google play store".

image of install unknown apps in settings

Later, it got more restrictive, ironically, making it a real security feature.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

That article specifically mentions that Google doesn't restrict installing apps from sources other than their store.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but see, that's okay because they're the ones doing it and they're totally not gonna be evil, nope, not them

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

They got rid of the dont be evil line.