• spacelord@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Seems that google’s announced plans to restrict sideloading on Android are now in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s order to open the Play Store to alternative app stores and reduce its control over app distribution.

    How will this play out in the end… 🤔

    • pory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      39 minutes ago

      Google’s announced plans aren’t actually about restricting “sideloading” (aka installing). They’re about restricting actually running the code, and developing/distributing the code.

      Content distributed through these “other app stores” and elsewhere will remain installable, but your phone will refuse to run the software if that content isn’t signed with the special Google’s Favorite Boy token that the developer got by providing personally identifiable information to Google. Get that “certification”? Your app can be run on Android no matter how you distribute it, including “side loading” (download APK file, install app).

      Don’t have the Official Nintendo Seal of Quality Verified Developer token to sign your app with? The only way a user can run your code is by connecting to a PC and installing your app with adb (a development tool).

    • Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Don’t call it “sideloading” it’s a negative term attempting to rebrand installing any app you want: taboo and illegal by effect. Call it what it is, installing apps. Thats it.

    • Rekhyt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      To be clear, it’s not the Supreme Court’s order, they only declined the appeal or to issue a stay, so technically it is a “regular” court order, which is just as binding.

    • Carighan Maconar@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not at all, they can still require apps to be signed, so long as you’re free to allow app installations. They’ll weasel out by saying the signing is for safety/security reasons, to avoid malware and shit.

      • krooklochurm@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So this means they’ll take responsibility for malware and offer support, right? Right?

      • witty_username@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So one dev can sign off on f-droid and then we’re fine as long as we use that in stead of the play store?

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Nope. No apk you can get a hold of will be installable without googles over the internet check. At current it looks like you’ll be able to force an install using adb shell commands, but that will effectively gut almost anyone from installing an unsigned apk. Also, Google would be able to remove even that option if they so choose.

        • Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          The OS will probably check the signature of any app you’re trying to install regardless of if it’s from F-Droid or the Play Store

          • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            No, as it stands this is the end of F-Droid. Each developer registration must include the manifest IDs of all apps they publish. No way F-droid can include all the apps they publish in their registration.

            • pory@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              37 minutes ago

              Or of course, each developer themselves becomes responsible for “registering as a developer” and thus loses all anonymity as a dev.

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Right and then they might well lose the next antitrust suit for weaseling around. Judges know what this kind of behavior means, though who can say how they’ll react.

        The timing is too perfect, the effects are too apparent.