Imagine how Apple will feel if Google got docked for this. Apple’s app store is even worse. You can’t even side load apps on an iPhone/iPad without jailbreak.
Yeah, I’m wondering why Google got targeted first for this when Apple locks down their ecosystem a lot more. Not to defend Google, I would cheer a decision to break them up.
They didn’t. Epic sued Apple in 2021. They lost. They’ve already filed for appeal. They are targeting Apple and Google for the same infraction. It’s not about the App Store, it’s mostly about the 30% commission both companies take on app sales AND in app purchases.
It’s not about the App Store, it’s mostly about the 30% commission both companies take on app sales [in the app store] AND in app purchases [through the app store].
How is it not about the app store?
Because once Google play store is down, it will set a precedent to take apple store down too.
You can side load them, kinda, its just a huge pain so your point still stands
Do you have a method that keeps sideloaded apps “verified” permanently? If you do, please do tell. I’d love to install YouTube++ on my kid’s tablet so they don’t have to sit through ads all the time.
Check out Yattee on the App Store. It’s a client for Piped.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629
You will need to manually add a Piped instance such as piped.video
Also note I don’t own an iOS device, so I haven’t tried this app myself.
Just download Xcode, it’s free, and it’s from Apple. With that you can deploy any app (if you have the binary - or the source code, but you don’t technically need the source code) on your own devices and a hundred other people’s devices (it’s supposed to be work colleagues, but your kid’s tablet will work too in practice, who’s going to check or care?).
You can also “sideload” your app to up ten thousand devices linked to other Apple IDs via TestFlight which also a service run by Apple (for a nominal subscription fee) and intended for developers to test apps that aren’t ready for distribution yet, though that process does require a partial review by Apple (it’s mostly just an automated malware scan, not a full app review). It’s perfectly normal for an app to be in development for years without going public. Most apps I’ve written have never shipped, but I still use a few of them on my own devices.
As for getting a copy of YouTube++ from a reputable source, that doesn’t contain malware… that’s basically no different from downloading software for a Mac or PC. Be careful where you download it from yeah?
Generally though, using Xcode is safer than using AltStore since you haven’t jailbroken your device and all the sandboxing/etc is still in place. I’d be more worried about malware infecting your Mac when you load it into Xcode than I would about the iPhone (though it certainly could contain a zero day that escapes the sandbox).
you can, but unless you pay apple 100$ every year, you’ll be limited to 3 apps and you’ll need to resign (basically reinstall while keeping app data) them every 7 days
If the Google Play store is a monopoly, then what the fuck is the apple store? At least on android you’re not forced to only use the play store if you choose, unless you do some sketchy shit to your iPhone, you’re stuck with their store only.
Epic already tried and failed with the same argument against Apple, from the article:
Epic in 2021 mostly lost a nearly identical case against Apple over its own app store monopoly for iOS devices, and it is waiting to find out whether the US Supreme Court will hear an appeal.
It’s not an android post without someone trying to make it about Apple instead.
How could it be? Most Android manufacturers, including Google, allow you to use other app stores.
If anyone has an Unjust Monopoly in this space it’s Apple. (Though I think it’s unfortunately more complicated than that, as much as I’d love to see Apple forced to let other app stores on.)
The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed. So the only way to install another one, is to go out on the net and download an APK directly. When you try to install it, the system gives you a warning that it can be dangerous. Just those two hurdles are enough to ensure the vast majority of users will never leave the hurdle-less Play Store.
Surely the warning is justified though? Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable and other platforms also warn users about apps from unverified sources, so it is common within the industry. If the play store is determined to be a monopoly, and gets broken up or off, I think a warning would still be warranted.
The default install thing used to be an issue, i.e. MS Explorer, but people seem to have stopped caring since all OS’s now have pre-installed junk.
I guess the argument could be made thst the play store should allow downloading of other app stores? I’d be in favor of that, but I don’t know if the courts can force something like that.
Yes it’s a hurdle, but it seems reasonable
99% of of users never get over that hurdle, which makes it unreasonable. “Monopoly” is the wrong term to use and it distracts from the issue - the better term is “Market Power”. Google has enough power to have a potentially damaging impact on the industry. With that power comes responsibility to not do any damage - that’s not just my opinion it’s also the law (not in those exact words obviously).
Also - the apps are from “unverified sources” because Google deliberately refuses to verify them. They’re happy to verify and assign a trust rating to every single webpage in the world… why are apps treated different? The simple answer is because Google makes more money by refusing to verify apps unless they share 30% of their revenue - which is basically extortion. There’s no way they’re doing enough work to justify a fee that high.
Sure, charge whatever fee you want but allow third party stores to compete fairly. In that world if they want to continue charging as much as they are now, they need to offer a hell of a lot more than developers are getting right now for their money.
The Play Store is installed by default, and doesn’t allow other app stores to be listed.
Not saying it’s much better, but my phone came with the playstore and the “Galaxy store”… now there isn’t a lot of useful stuff in the Galaxy store, but you can wager money against other players in games of solitaire, bingo and bubble pop… so there’s that at least…
And? For anyone who actually wants another app store, that’s not exactly a high bar of technical know-how. In fact, for the most part it’s the way stuff works on other platforms as well (provided you even have the option of choosing on those).
If you want to install Steam on Windows you need to download it, click through, and run the installer.
Linux may have snap etc, but to add unofficial software channels you need to manually edit things.
Apple straight out says “nope” on iOS unless you jailbreak.
In xiaomi phones there is a xiaomi store, in Samsung phones there is a galaxy store, and here in Spain if you buy a phone through a ISP, you may get another app store from said ISP (I know Orange and Vodaphone do this, Vodaphone going as far as preinstalling shitty mobile games on their phones to get a commission)
Epic and Apple have already had this battle two years ago. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. They served Apple and Google at the same time. Google removed Fortnite within hours of Apple doing so. Epic will battle Google, and if they lose here, they will likely appeal this too.
This is correct, but misses some semantics. Apple won because they argued that they controlled everything on the iPhone to give it a coherent design. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to allow 3rd parties to swap out the profitable component from underneath them.
Google on the other hand has always allowed 3rd party versions of things on Android- so Google can’t make the same argument.
(I’m not defending anything here, only summarizing the cases)
Imagine how untenable Apple’s position would be if the Play Store is proven to be a monopoly.
It’s a monopsony - a monopoly from the other side.
Google Play Store is not the single seller of apps to users but a single sensible buyer from developers. Of course with most apps being free of change, “buyer” and “seller” are loose terms to satisfy the definition.
Microsoft was considered a monopoly for including internet explorer with windows, despite the fact you could still install a 3rd party browser.
Epic already went to court for the same thing with Apple in 2021. Epic lost. They’ve filed an appeal already. Apple and Google both removed Fortnite from their respective stores within hours of each other.
It’s unlikely epic will win this battle, but if they don’t, they will likely file an appeal against Google as well.
Technical characteristics like Android making it hard or impossible for third-party app stores to auto-update, as well as restrictive agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers are pretty damning. Google deserves to lose based on that, however,
their devices sometimes warn that the “file might be harmful” and require settings to be changed to allow “unknown” apps
Chrome on Windows warns that a .exe download might be harmful. Chrome on Linux warns that a .deb download might be harmful. We have a long history of malware using drive-by downloads or trying to pose as non-executable file types as evidence that these features are in the user’s interests. At most, some rewording of “unknown” sources might be in order.
At most, some rewording of “unknown” sources might be in order.
On Windows and Linux (and Mac) there are ways to setup your computer to trust certain sources. You should be able to set a third party app store as a trusted source.
And yeah cut out the “unknown” bullshit and just show the name of the company after verifying their identity - which is a feature Android already has and uses all the time to check if a third party website can be trusted.
For everyone in the back of the room, monopoly in the context doesn’t require to literally have no other choice. It’s enough for the alternatives to be impractical as in not widely used in practice.
Well that’s an easy one then, if that’s true.
Especially for Apple phones, damn.
I’m not the world’s most elite hacker, but I know a thing or two and it took me a long time to get F-Droid going on my Android and even longer to figure out how to side load apps and where to get the files for side loading.
It can be done but I’d guess 99% of people out there have never and will never do these 2 things.
Android makes you double confirm every installation on F-Droid. If you want to install something you have to tap to download, then tap again to actually install the software. Updating apps is incredibly annoying.
The google store doesn’t do this. They allow sideloading, but they do a lot to discourage it.
Is it possible that alternatives are not widely used because most people don’t want to use alternatives in the first place?
Sure it is. It doesn’t change the monopoly position. The real question isn’t whether this is a monopoly but whether it’s being abused. E.g. imagine if Google charged 99% fee on any sale via the Play Store. Or if Google disallowed alternative methods of payment but their own for any app distributed on the Play Store.
