[HN Gopher] Epic is asking a court to stop Google from yanking B...
___________________________________________________________________
Epic is asking a court to stop Google from yanking Bandcamp off the
Play Store
Author : grmnygrmny2
Score : 88 points
Date : 2022-04-30 15:15 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| SethMurphy wrote:
| So why can I make an Amazon purchase, using Amazon pay, through
| their android app installed through the Play Store. Is Google
| getting a cut there? Bandcamp must really be a threat to Google.
| MikusR wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203907
| parkingrift wrote:
| I'll side with Epic when they agree to let me sideload skins in
| Fortnite. Open your platform, Epic!
| stale2002 wrote:
| The difference, of course, being that Google controls ~50
| percent of the smartphone OS markets whereas Epic does not
| control anywhere close to half of the video game market.
|
| Yes, if epic controlled 1 of only two serious video games in
| the entire world, then yes anti trust law should apply to them.
|
| But that is clearly not the case, whereas Google and Apple
| clearly are much closer to being anti-competitive.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Fortnite skins are a store, not a marketplace. There's a big
| difference.
| parkingrift wrote:
| While this is an absolutely true statement that distinction
| is an active choice by Fortnite to monopolize their platform.
| jedimastert wrote:
| Do other people allowed to sell skins on the store? Is
| side-loading an official feature elsewhere? I feel like if
| side-loading or community skins aren't actually supported
| then it's an important distinction
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I didn't think about it this way before, but it really looks like
| Epic might have bought out Bandcamp just to make this strategic
| legal play.
|
| Some (niche reddit subs) think Musk bought out Twitter just to
| shit on the short sellers of TWTR that overlap with targeting
| Tesla, and "just because he could".
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Also - I think Android is still a superior OS for Bandcamp users,
| since iOS doesn't allow local loading of music through the app.
| Nevertheless, I downloaded all my purchases and put them on my
| Android FS.
| rchaud wrote:
| > "However, Google is now modifying its rules to require Bandcamp
| (and other apps like it) to exclusively use Google Play Billing
| for payments for digital goods and services, and pay a revenue
| share to Google," [Bandcamp CEO Ethan] Diamond says.
|
| A great example of two polar opposite worlds:
|
| - Bandcamp: lets artists set their prices, lets consumers
| purchase lossless DRM-free files. Mobile site works fine without
| Google. No uninvited algorithmic feeds ruining your personally
| curated collection.
|
| - Google: entire business relies on the open web, yet the mobile
| platform follows a sharecropping model from the 1800s, the video
| platform pays creators fractions of a penny per view, and
| everything is nailed down with DRM.
| ecf wrote:
| My cynical opinion is that it feels Tim Sweeney is purchasing
| companies in hopes he finds the "right" one that that causes
| enough public outrage to get his way in regards to App Store
| cuts.
| antihero wrote:
| I think it is pretty outrageous to spend a grand on a phone and
| then be told that I'm not allowed to put what I want on it or
| spend money supporting artists or publishers without a middle
| man. It's absolutely insane and I'm not sure why it isn't
| subject to a huge antitrust investigation. And this is coming
| from someone that likes Apple!
| tpmoney wrote:
| Except this is about Google, and about Android, where you can
| put what you want and spend money without that middle man.
| You just need to side load, or install some other app store.
| robonerd wrote:
| Bless him for it.
| passivate wrote:
| So far he has lost a ton of cash on lawyer fees, M&A costs,
| etc. And EPIC now has to individually manage the acquired
| companies, make sure they're not competing against each other
| in the same market, etc, etc. I don't think this type of
| "spending current money to save future money" works. I don't
| care which company is doing it, but someone needs to break the
| App Store toll-booth.
|
| Apple/Google/Anyone else trying to limit general purpose
| computing on mobile/PC platforms is a terrible thing for
| computing, but thats just my view. The ideal situation is we
| have a default app store - where the system integrator enforces
| all their policies, but then a user can voluntarily choose to
| download a separate app store where that store is run by
| different less exploitative policies. To make it easy for
| users, you can have an central store-front which then re-
| directs users to the different store pages. No different than a
| "Nike store" on Amazon.
| mkhpalm wrote:
| At this point I feel its fairly obvious that only real
| solution is a completely new mobile OS.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| At least in Android it is already the case, I have installed
| both F-Droid and Huawei's AppGallery in an otherwise stock
| android. (And prefer to get as much as possible from F-Droid)
|
| Apple on the other hand has a war against "evil" sideloading.
| :P
| anonymousab wrote:
| > At least in Android it is already the case
|
| There are roadblocks and deficiencies though, a major one
| being that sideloaded app stores cannot automatically
| update their applications, making them permanently inferior
| and crippled compared to Google's offering.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Also, some apps from F-Droid are crippled compared to
| what they can do when downloading from Play Store, eg.
| the K9 mail app from F-Droid doesn't have support for
| push email, it can only check at intervals.
|
| I don't know what the reason for this is, but the result
| is that Android is not a truly "open" platform.
| IshKebab wrote:
| They're actually fixing that finally (I'm sure it has
| absolutely nothing to do with Epic's lawsuits...)
| echelon wrote:
| > And EPIC now has to individually manage the acquired
| companies, make sure they're not competing against each other
|
| Tim Sweeney is buying _creator marketplaces_. The Github in
| each market: 3D (sketchup /artstation), 2D (artstation),
| music (bandcamp), etc. It's the Microsoft play, but for
| creatives.
|
| He's trying to leapfrog the gaming industry and build a
| content creation engine that encompasses Hollywood,
| marketing, architecture, automotive, you name it. He's
| actively cultivating skilled creator mindshare and winning.
|
| He's also trying to set legal precedent that siloed
| distribution marketplaces can't charge an arm and a leg and
| enforce draconian rules, because his play is a two sided
| multi-channel marketplace where he wins regardless of where
| you buy or sell.
|
| The endgame for Tim is huge if it works.
| chucky_z wrote:
| The thing that sucks for me is that while I fundamentally
| agree with everything Tim is doing, he has _got_ to get
| some better PR because I am so tired of this. I am tired of
| Tim Sweeney and Epic this multi billion dollar company
| going "boohoo I'm so bullied," like, shut up and just do
| the thing without trying to smear anyone and everyone who
| isn't yourself.
| valdiorn wrote:
| Good. It should cause outrage.
| riversflow wrote:
| The only outrage I feel is that Tim Sweeney is using the
| compensation of starving artists, the main demographic on
| Bandcamp as I understand it, to try and make himself and EPIC
| richer or more relatively powerful. I don't give two hoots
| about "breaking up the App Store Model" and I doubt many/most
| musicians do either. I personally feel that 30% isn't even
| outrageous considering the value proposition.
|
| Relatively rich/privileged software developers making their
| problem (App Stores wanting a 30% cut) the musicians' problem
| isn't noble, it's evil.
|
| Edit: The way I see it, Tim Sweeney/EPIC is responsible for
| breaking the status quo that allowed bandcamp's niche to
| operate the way they did, which seems a reasonable
| assumption. That acquisition turned the userbase into a pawn
| in the App store battle.
| _readyforit wrote:
| The thing is... 30% _is_ a lot for the artists on Bandcamp.
|
| Say I sell my album for $10 for easy math.
|
| I think Bandcamp takes something like 10-15%, there's a
| small PayPal fee (~1%) and the rest goes to me.
|
| That's ~$8.41 in my pocket.
|
| If Google takes their cut at the beginning for
| providing...the App Store where the buyer downloaded the
| app... the artist's cut becomes ~$5.89. For a $10 album.
|
| It just doesn't line up with the whole point of Bandcamp.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _The thing is... 30% is a lot for the artists on
| Bandcamp._
|
| How do you feel about 10%, which is what it probably
| would be according to TFA?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > I don't give two hoots about "breaking up the App Store
| Model" and I doubt many/most musicians do either
|
| Well you should. Because regardless of if Epic bought
| bandcamp or not, the fee that google charges would come
| directly out of musicians pockets.
|
| Regardless of who is running bandcamp, that feel would
| directly cause artists to not make as much money.
|
| > I personally feel that 30% isn't even outrageous
|
| Ok, and now the end result is that fee is coming out of
| artists pockets.
|
| If you don't care about artist compensation, and want them
| to make less money, well fine. But don't pretend like you
| are on the side of artist compensation.
| hamburglar wrote:
| Yes, 100%. Epic or no, google announced that they were
| going to start taking an additional (and rather large)
| cut of payments for music sales which they have no part
| in. Bandcamp built a payment system that facilitates
| artists making money at zero cost to google, and now
| google wants to prevent that unless they get a cut.
|
| You can argue that google provides the foothold that gets
| the app on the device, so maybe a small fee could be
| justified, but taking place in all transactions that
| enables in perpetuity despite providing no technical
| contribution to them is ridiculous.
|
| Bandcamp could do a billion dollars a week in sales and
| it wouldn't cost google a dime.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Sweeney / Epic donated $144 million to Ukraine. As far as
| virtue signaling goes, I think they've shown they do in
| fact have a fair amount of principles. Platform monopolies
| are real problems.
| thisarticle wrote:
| More and more it looks like Epic just wants access to these major
| platforms and wants other companies and developers to pay for it.
| belltaco wrote:
| Is that what happens when a Windows program is not put on
| Windows Store? Thieves!
| thisarticle wrote:
| They're free to distribute an APK like everyone else.
| prmoustache wrote:
| It is not about buying/delivering the app.
|
| It is about doing payment within the app once it is
| installed. In that case Epic is paying/maintaining its
| payment infra. Your point is irrelevant
| stale2002 wrote:
| Got it.
|
| So if back in 1999, internet explorer only allowed you to
| download something, if they took a percentage fee, then
| you'd be OK this with use of monopolistic power.
| jahnu wrote:
| Can you think of any reasons why this might not be a
| realistic choice?
| warning26 wrote:
| While I generally agree with Epic's positions, it seems like a
| bit of a stretch here, considering that Android allows both
| sideloading and alternative app stores.
|
| Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from
| releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system
| they desire.
| [deleted]
| PeterisP wrote:
| Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which
| Google certainly has) even if theoretical alternatives exist.
| It does not matter that it's not literally a monopoly, as that
| is not the legal bar that needs to be passed for Google to be
| limited in what they can and can't do.
| gigatexal wrote:
| But it does matter what the law says. If they're not a
| monopoly in the eyes of the law what can a judge do?
| AnssiH wrote:
| The parent meant that antitrust laws usually apply even if
| there is no monopoly in the strictest possible sense (i.e.
| literally no competitors). A dominant market position is
| enough.
| bko wrote:
| Bandcamp is using their own billing system, bypassing
| Google's cut. Every app could do this and cut Google out all
| together. An app could just let you download the app, pay
| some amount when you're in the app which would unlock the
| functionality. I don't think its unreasonable for Google to
| have a problem with this. They want to get the reach of the
| app store, and make money off it, without paying a cut to the
| host like everyone else. What am I missing here?
| bombcar wrote:
| Should you (or Disney, but costs always end up at the
| customer eventually) have to pay a fee for every single
| device you sign into Disney+ on? It's bad enough you can't
| use it on an Xbox without Gold Live or whatever it is.
| oauea wrote:
| Google is running an app store. Why should they have any
| right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been
| installed? Once the user has installed the app the
| transaction has been finalized. And if that app is given
| away for free, and Google has a problem with that, they
| should ban all free apps and require charging a fee.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Exactly. Epic have their own store for games. Would they be
| fine with each AAA game releasing on the store for "free"
| but required a credit card to be entered once it was run,
| with 100% of the money going to the publisher?
| mdoms wrote:
| Yes, the Epic store enables this exact scenario. Lots of
| free games on Epic make all of their month through micro
| transactions billed entirely through their own systems.
| See Rocket League for one example, but there are many.
| SXX wrote:
| I really unsure about EGS monetization model, but Psyonix
| (developer of Rocket League) are subsidiary of Epic.
|
| UPD: At least while ago in 2019 Epic claimed to give a
| choice of payment processor to use for games on their
| store:
| https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-
| games...
| mdoms wrote:
| As I said there are lots of free games on Epic which use
| their own store fronts for transactions.
| [deleted]
| colechristensen wrote:
| That Google's cut of payments is very high which points to
| market position abuse
| lolinder wrote:
| High compared to what? It's the same as Apple's, so
| you're not comparing to other app stores. Amazon charges
| the same percentage on Kindle for eBooks.
|
| When people claim that the app store fees are excessively
| large they're usually comparing to payment processor
| fees, but neither major app store functions solely as a
| payment processor. So if not that, what are we comparing
| to when we say the fee is high?
| withinboredom wrote:
| The fee could be lower. They (the App Store owner) only
| needs to sign a blob. They (Google/Apple/Amazon) choose
| to host the blobs, and then charge the developer for it.
| They claim "marketing" too, but as far as I can tell,
| that usually involves a sale and the app owner has no
| choice but to sell their app for less without their
| consent. I think Apple sometimes has "curated" lists, but
| it's questionable how "effective" that is since they
| don't release much numbers. What is the ROI of getting
| randomly chosen to be on that list? Is it worth 30%? We
| will never know.
| amelius wrote:
| In the 80s and 90s you could buy software running on
| Windows, where the vendor of the software didn't pay
| anything to Microsoft; in fact, I'm sure Microsoft was
| happy with them supporting and increasing the strength of
| their platform.
|
| Why does this have to change now? Why does the platform
| need a cut?
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Why does the platform need a cut?_
|
| To meet shareholder expectations of continuous growth.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The software vendor instead payed for magazine ads,
| placement on shop shelves, had their own payment and
| distribution infrastructure.
| mattmcknight wrote:
| When you bought software at a retail store, the vendor
| didn't get the full retail price. It's not the platform
| getting a cut, it's the store. What we need to ensure is
| that platforms can't force you into their store.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The ship has already sailed on that long ago.
|
| If there's a new store on the iPhone, virtually no one
| will use it.
|
| The default is good enough, it's already installed on
| ~1Bn devices, and most of those devices use it somewhat
| regularly already.
| chongli wrote:
| As far back as the 80's there were means of distributing
| software without paying a retailer a commission on every
| sale. Shareware [1] was one such model. The software was
| distributed by users copying it from floppy to floppy,
| handing it out at user group meetings, conferences, even
| on the school playground. It was later included in large
| CD-ROM collections packaged with computer magazines.
|
| The point is that you could distribute your software any
| way you wanted to without permission or license fees paid
| to the maker of the computer or its operating system.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
| Arainach wrote:
| You as the Shareware author were paying for the creation
| of those discs and their distribution. If you had an FTP
| server, you paid for the bandwidth.
|
| Epic isn't doing that. Epic wants access to Google's
| customers, with Google paying all the bills, without
| paying Google anything. Despite the fact that Android
| allows them to run their own app store or sideload apps.
| IIsi50MHz wrote:
| Shareware disks _could_ be written and paid for by the
| shareware author, but user-to-user distribution, at the
| _user's_ cost was [seemingly] more common.
| drdeca wrote:
| I think this might be more compelling if Epic were the
| ones hosting the download, and Google were just like,
| listing the download in their listings, where the
| download button would go to Epic's servers.
| withinboredom wrote:
| And we might ask ourselves: why can't Google do that?
| They just need to sign the binary, Google doesn't have to
| host it.
| bobviolier wrote:
| Because back then you paid a lot of money for Windows and
| they also sold you on Office and the likes. Google's
| business model with android is exactly this, give the OS
| for cheap but earn money on the apps.
|
| Not saying 10 or 30 is the correct amount. It's just
| different now.
| oauea wrote:
| I think you meant ads instead of apps.
| tester756 wrote:
| majority of the world never paid a single cent for
| windows
| josh2600 wrote:
| It was built into the cost of the computer.
| oauea wrote:
| Same for Android. Google charges a licensing fee from
| manufacturers.
| belltaco wrote:
| And cost of Android isn't or can't be?
|
| They make most of their money from user data and search
| anyway.
| adrian_b wrote:
| During most of the time since Windows exists, the
| majority of its users have not paid for Windows
| separately, but as a part of the purchase price of a new
| computer.
|
| Android could also be paid as a part of the purchase
| price of a smartphone and maybe it already is, but of
| course a one-time payment would be much less profitable
| for Google than a continuous stream of revenue from the
| apps.
| novok wrote:
| Google also makes google chrome and doesn't get a single
| cent off of transactions done on that web browser too.
| ydlr wrote:
| A horrible injustice that will one day be corrected. It
| just takes a couple generations to change expectations.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >which Google certainly has
|
| You're conflating some ideas here. A marketplace owner
| _always_ has "dominant market power" over the market they
| own. That's the nature of marketplace, the owner gets to set
| certain rules like the types of payments accepted at the
| marketplace, because that is literally the job of a
| marketplace.
|
| Google also has dominant market share, since their App Store
| is the best for android, but that's legal (keep in mind
| Amazon, another $1tn company actively competes in this space)
| - the government does not want to force consumers to use
| worse app stores. Competition for the sake of competition is
| _not_ pro consumer.
|
| What Google probably isn't doing (and what _is_ illegal) is
| using its OS market power to crowd out other app
| marketplaces. As mentioned above Amazon meaningfully competes
| in this space. The closes you could get there is Google
| doesn't publish its own apps to other app marketplaces, but
| that's likely not across the bar of anti-competition.
| [deleted]
| goosedragons wrote:
| One of things revealed because of the whole Fortnite issue
| was that Google squashed Epic's attempt to bundle their
| Android app with various OEMs.
|
| Google controls the platform and they're the ones who set
| up scary warnings for installing apps via sideloading
| (despite malicious apps being not uncommon in the Play
| Store itself.)
| gamblor956 wrote:
| No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint
| of trade. That is one of the behaviors generally considered
| to violate antitrust rules, if the company is using its
| leverage in one market to attempt a vertical restraint of
| trade _in another market._
|
| In this case, the leveraged market is the app store, and
| the restrained market is _mobile payment processing_.
| jollybean wrote:
| "Google also has dominant market share, since their App
| Store is the best for android, "
|
| No, it's preloaded on every device, that's why.
|
| If some other App Store, 'App Store B' were preloaded on
| every device, and App Store were not, then that 'App Store
| B' would ultimately be 'that much better'.
|
| That said - I don't agree with Epic here.
|
| If you want your merchandise in Walmart, it's fair that
| Walmart does the selling and the checkout. You can't put
| your merch in there, and expect to be able to buy it
| 'online' and walk out with it. This is irrespective of
| Walmart's position in the general market.
|
| Google Play preloads are another question.
|
| Sideloading is also another question.
|
| But stuff in Google Play, I think it's fair if they set the
| rules there.
| saurik wrote:
| These are in-app purchases, right? Imagine if Walmart
| demanded a 30% cut not of merely the sale price for
| anything they sold you, but had a policy that any later
| sale that that product caused--such as an app on a phone,
| if the phone was purchased for Walmart ;P--had to use
| Walmart.com's billing and they were entitled to a 30%
| cut... and then place that ridiculous scenario in a world
| where half the people in the US only could shop at
| Walmart and the other half only could shop at Target (and
| it would cost the user $500 to switch stores and then
| they would only be able to use the other store). If you
| want to say that apps shouldn't be free with later
| purchase, that would at least make more sense? Like,
| sure: Walmart isn't going to stock and hand out phones
| for free. But I feel like the honest version of that
| business makes it so that app developers just pay Apple
| for hosting fees--which would correlate with downloads,
| not revenue--which is how all of this really should work.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power
| (which Google certainly has)
|
| Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where
| near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems
| here.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _Antitrust rules apply to monopolies_
|
| No, they don't. Most antitrust cases don't involve
| monopolies, since those are actually quite rare, and most
| monopolies don't involve anticompetitive behavior.
|
| Antitrust is about regulating anticompetitive market
| activities, which ranges from price fixing to monopolies.
| dessant wrote:
| > Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no
| where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant
| systems here.
|
| I'm sure that will be consolation to the growing number of
| victims whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed
| when an overworked reviewer or an algorithm allowed to go
| rampant kicked out their products from the app stores where
| the overwhelming majority of users could discover them.
|
| Your definition of monopolies and applicable antitrust
| rules is divorced from reality, and from the legal
| framework based on which these monopolies have been
| repeatedly fined, and will be forced to open up their
| platforms.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp
| from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment
| system they desire.
|
| On iOS, just as on Android, there is nothing stopping you from
| handling purchases and payments through your own website and
| having your app only handle content consumption as companies
| like Netflix and Spotify have done on iOS for years.
| [deleted]
| hamburglar wrote:
| If there is a path to sideload an app without google scaring
| the pants off users, then I agree. Making apps from the play
| store sound safe and apps from a 3rd party store sound scary
| and dangerous is abusing your position, however.
| Mk2000 wrote:
| But those "alternatives app stores" can never do the things
| Play Store can, like automatic installing/updating apps without
| user needing to click "Install" for each one. (which gets quite
| annoying)
|
| Google could've made it possible but did not, that's monopoly.
| akvadrako wrote:
| They can with new versions of Android:
|
| https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-
| st...
| Tagbert wrote:
| Though the install rate would drop considerably. Most users are
| not comfortable with sideloading.
| 1048576 wrote:
| I'd guess most users don't know what sideloading is.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Google ensures that they are they are frightened away with
| scary warnings.
| drusepth wrote:
| This seems necessary and good. There are occasional bad
| actor apps that slip through Google's app store review
| process and there are good apps that get sideloaded, but
| sideloading entails literally zero review. It's entirely up
| to the user to determine whether they're trustworthy or
| not, which is a paradigm shift for most who don't think
| phones could harbor anything worse than just obtrusive ads
| in apps.
|
| There are plenty of good apps I've sideloaded, but thinking
| of the majority of the population being relatively tech-
| illiterate, there's a big difference between a bad actor
| having to convince someone to change their settings to
| enable sideloading (despite a big, scary warning) and then
| convincing them to install an app versus just convincing
| someone to run/install a random APK. Case in point: a huge
| percent of the population unknowingly opens and/or installs
| random bad binaries on Windows every day.
|
| Sideloading (and all that entails) should absolutely be
| allowed, but the "scary warnings" do a great job preventing
| a huge portion of people from unknowingly opening a huge
| threat avenue to some of their most valuable
| devices/information.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > There are occasional bad actor apps that slip through
| Google's app store review process
|
| It happens on a regular enough basis that consumer tech
| sites are warning users to be careful of what they
| install from inside Google's walled garden.
|
| >With malicious apps infiltrating Play on a regular,
| often weekly, basis, there's currently little indication
| the malicious Android app scourge will be abated. That
| means it's up to individual end users to steer clear of
| apps like Joker. The best advice is to be extremely
| conservative in the apps that get installed in the first
| place. A good guiding principle is to choose apps that
| serve a true purpose and, when possible, choose
| developers who are known entities. Installed apps that
| haven't been used in the past month should be removed
| unless there's a good reason to keep them around.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2020/09/joker...
| JoshTko wrote:
| this makes sense. Users who don't know what they are doing
| should be dissuaded. Those that do know what they are doing
| will not be dissuaded. Given the potential security
| consequences the warning approach is entirely appropriate.
| bko wrote:
| I don't know, I just tried downloading an APK directly
| (telegram). Android warns me file might be harmful.
|
| Do you suggest they shouldn't warn someone when they
| download an APK? It's also browser specific and I imagine
| all major browser give the same kind of warning because ,
| you know, downloading an APK directly from a website might
| be harmful.
| ece wrote:
| Something like enabling instant apps and play protect
| scanning for any apk on the web could mean a nicer and
| safer experience for users. I think people would still
| use the app stores for their discovery/convenience but
| safer web installs could be an option for both users and
| developers.
|
| This model exists on desktops and laptops, where there is
| signing or browser scanning, just not on mobile.
| cma wrote:
| So you've gone through all the weird flows to accept and
| enable installing. Now how do you get security updates?
| Google scares them again every time, even though android
| apps can already execute arbitrary downloaded unsigned
| code at runtime (otherwise V8 and other JITs that
| generate machine code can't work), so it isn't really
| protecting much and mainly makes things more insecure by
| not letting you add your own trusted providers
| permanently for timely updates.
| ece wrote:
| Self updates can be a thing now in Android 12 I
| believe[1]. The initial install and updates should be
| easier though, and not just on 12.
|
| [1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manif
| est.per...
| oauea wrote:
| Why isn't the same warning shown when installing from the
| play store? Apps installed from the play store can have
| the exact same permissions as side loaded apps. You can
| claim that Google vets the apps, but this is pretty much
| false. Just go make an app and experience the process for
| yourself, it's laughable. Any checks they perform are
| automated, and there's no reason those couldn't just run
| on-device.
|
| And besides, even for side loaded apps they have a
| database of "bad" apps that get deleted by Google called
| "play protect"
| IshKebab wrote:
| To be fair, installing an app from the store might be
| harmful too.
| hamburglar wrote:
| Yes. Require them to give the same dire warnings about
| apps from their own store, or remove them both.
| drusepth wrote:
| The difference is that the store includes any amount of
| heuristic tests meant to scan for malicious activity, and
| directly installing an APK has no such safety net.
|
| You can argue that the testing Google does is bad or
| minimal, but it seems like the ideal solution would then
| be "improve the testing". I'd also prefer to see such
| tests moved on-device so they could apply to APKs from
| any source, but I don't know how technically feasible
| that'd be; depends on how they're doing the testing, I
| guess.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| This puts google in the position of being the arbiter of
| what testing is "good enough" when they're also one of
| the supposed competitors. If there's no mechanism by
| which the other app stores meet the "good enough" bar for
| testing that would eliminate the dire warnings, then they
| shouldn't be penalized for not being google.
| drusepth wrote:
| This is pretty par for the course, though. Who else is
| incentivized to determine what is "good enough" wrt user
| experience/safety on Google's platform? Microsoft, Apple,
| Canonical, Samsung, Steam, Amazon, etc are all the
| arbiters of what's "good enough" (or safe enough) for
| their respective platforms (and marketplaces) because
| it's their brand at bat when something _isn't_ good
| enough (or safe enough).
|
| "Android" (by Google) takes a reputation hit when someone
| downloads malicious APKs from anywhere, including
| Google's store. Google, therefore, wants to reduce the
| availability of bad apps in their ecosystem; maintaining
| an app store that enforces their standard of quality is
| one approach to accomplishing this goal, dissuading
| unknown apps they can't vouch for is another.
|
| Obviously, there are both pros and cons to these
| approaches (from both Google and the end-user's
| perspectives), and they could definitely be improved, but
| they accomplish a concrete goal of "reduce malware on
| Android".
| jollybean wrote:
| I doubt that.
|
| I don't think users really even care.
|
| 'Download Here' and it's good to go.
|
| I don't think people think that much about 'viruses' in their
| mobile.
|
| Some do of course.
| cma wrote:
| At least in the past Android wouldn't allow security updates
| without having the user take a bunch of steps each time. Users
| couldn't just add a trusted authority permanently. Google also
| allegedly colluded with phone maker storefronts to keep them
| from working out deals with Epic.
| kotaKat wrote:
| So... Sweeney wasn't happy with 30%, and now he's not happy with
| a sweetheart 10% deal?
|
| Pull the app and pull a Fortnite at this point and make people
| sideload it. I'm too tired of watching this fight over and over
| again, especially now that they're in the position of actually
| having a special deal that was given to them (even if it was pre-
| Epic).
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| He's not ok with sweet heart deals conceptually. Because
| they're bullshit
| CharlesW wrote:
| Then I have good news, in that this isn't some special
| "sweetheart deal". 10% is the standard rev share for music
| streaming apps that participate in Google's "Play Media
| Experience Program".
| mattkevan wrote:
| Feels like Epic bought Bandcamp just to use them as a pawn in
| their crusade.
|
| Hoping nothing bad happens to it as it's one of my favourite
| places on the Web.
| draw_down wrote:
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-30 23:02 UTC)