I fear google will use this to purge low cost or even free "no-nonsense" (no ads, in app purchases, unnecessary features, etc.).
there already had been a pattern of google discriminating against such apps
and from a pure monetary sense it makes sense, while for most users such no-nonsense apps are preferable they make little money for Google and compete with apps which do
in a certain way google has motivation to feature _especially_ consumer hostile apps using all kinds of dark patterns to trick, blackmail or outright scam people into paying more
such a bias is probably illegal under the recent (EU) digital markets act as but that is even more motivation for google do kill a lot of such useful apps now before it's more strictly enforced
I go to F-Droid for no-nonsense apps. You can never be too sure what apps will do behind your back if they are not open source.
Also, almost all of F-Droid is no-nonsense, so I don't have to spend time trying to choose the least sleazly looking app like I would have on other stores.
The no-nonsense apps are a dying breed on Google Play. Even a lot of non-shovelware apps are subscription-only, or don't work if you're offline, or introduce new enshittification features with each update. At that point, I'm just going to use their mobile website.
F-Droid exists, fortunately. That's where I go if I want simple apps without any BS. Vinyl for music playback, AntennaPod for podcasts, Tusky for Mastodon, etc
That was the best thing that ever happened, because now you can go to F-Droid and just search for 'fossify' apps, and you'll get the newly forked FOSS versions of SMT apps. Now green-themed instead of orange-themed.
I can see selective enforcement happening a lot. "We don’t allow apps that crash, force close, freeze, or otherwise function abnormally." feels like it might be enforced a lot more strictly for some apps than others.
As long as Google isn't the gatekeeper on what I'm able to use my phone for, I'm okay with this. Most of the apps I care about are not installed from Google Play anyways.
This is indeed not as big of a deal as if it were Apple doing it, but it's important to remember that people like us who install apps from places other than the Play Store are a minority. As far as a lot of people are concerned, these apps just won't exist at all anymore.
Not 100% true. Some notable app developers can do this.
Epic Games has power to distribute outside Play store. Also DJI, the drone manufacturer is exclusively distributing outside. People are ready to go hoops to get access to these apps.
I'm typing this on a freshly installed copy of GrapheneOS, which has special support for sandboxing Google Play Services as a normal app. It works flawlessly. It gets only the permissions you grant - suddenly Maps isn't stopping me from switching apps while navigating and I don't even have to have the Assistant installed.
You do have to buy a Pixel, ironically the only phones with good enough manufacturer support for Graphene to support them. And be willing to spend 10 minutes clicking through the installer. But it's quite an upgrade from a stock Google image.
Graphene OS web based installer, works well. Of course they only need to support one type of phone with various hardware, not hundreds different ones. The only thing I'm upset with while using Graphene is lack of NFC payments because Google Pay claims this phone isn't "secure enough"
> Most of the apps I care about are not installed from Google Play anyways.
Ha, yeah, I'd rather look in F-Droid first, because I know I'd have to sift through a fuckton of garbage of maybe-malware or for-sure-adware (full 10 second video ads whenever you click on anything) if I look in the Play Store.
Sure maybe I'm exaggerating, and the truth is the Play Store experience is not that bad, but it's my perception.
Yep, at least we Android users have this option. This makes it much easier to say "eh, it's their store", when I can install anything I want on my phone.
As someone who just wrote an app so my users can use my service (https://www.deadmansswitch.net) more easily, though, I'm a bit miffed at the fact that it might be removed.
I wish there was a cryptographic solution that ensured that messages would be stored in an encrypted vault, re-encrypted every time I check in, and in a way that would take 60 days to decode to cleartext if I don't check in.
Thank you! The easier way to do that is to PGP encrypt to the recipients' keys, or just give them a symmetric encryption key and use some online AES service to decrypt it.
I guess that it's not bad to clean the store, but I'm just sad because it might be the last nail of the coffin of the good old time "anyone can create an Android app for pleasure in one weekend".
Now you need to be a professional developer with all the relevant infrastructure (a company, a public phone number, dozens of people for testing, fifty policy/regulation to comply with, ...)
As a solo developer of a small app its hard to find 20 unique testers who are willing to test it for 14 days. its going to cost me several times more than the cost of developing the app. just doesn’t make sense.
The tech world has this absurd imagination that Rome is built in a day, that if we build it right they will come. Success has to be instant & exponential or it's not worthwhile.
I could not be more disgusted by this change. This attitude rules so much of what happens now. Web specs are like, oh, only 0.1% of websites use this feature after 2 years: we can ignore it. That's a huge number, and the timeframe, the expectation that either tech is adopted & loved within months or its not worthwhile is horrendous, so greatly demeans human effort & the nature of how meaning builds.
We have to get back to expecting sometimes the larger changes being slow & tectonic.
If you can't find 20 people who want to use your app for free in exchange for some testing you haven't got much hope of selling enough copies of it to make it worthwhile building in the first place.
If it's a niche enough app, the payment is likely more of a tip jar instead of a full-blown business venture.
I pay for a few very niche calculator apps that I wouldn't even be able to find 20 people interested without putting in some effort and asking for friends to ask their friends.
Totally agree. Even I have a niche app for a specific group. Its tremendously hard for me to find 20 testers. And to be honest the app is pretty simple and doesn’t even require that many testers.
It's hard to justify why Google should support Play store apps that appeal to less than 20 people. That sounds like something where side-loading is a very useful alternative to an app store.
What you think google will remove: Spam and malware apps.
What google will actually remove: The configuration utility used to update the firmware and configure your home battery system. -- because it wasn't updated for the very latest android api released three weeks ago.
Random hurdles seem to favor bad actors over niche legitimate tools because the bad actors just become the foremost experts at working the system, while other players have better things to do with their time.
I'd say a welcome change, if done properly. I also noticed they're enforcing business registration and account verification requirements, and shutting down accounts that don't do it.
I fear that will also be used as an excuse to move against "unliked" apps.
Like (likely open source, hobby produced) no-nonsense (cost) free apps which provide some basic functionality and nothing more but also nothing unwanted (no tracking ads etc.).
Or in general apps without ads (google is known to already discriminated against such ads in various ways).
Does anyone else think that both app stores should be divinding the apps into 3 categories instead of 2. Like free apps, apps that don’t cost anything to download but have virtually no functionality without having subscription or paying and paid apps or maybe both of the latter two categories swhould be consider paid apps.
So, malware apps are "high-quality" and takes more effort to develop, so they still can be downloaded from Play Store? Until news about malicious apps removed from Play Store keeps appearing, I am assuming Google is not doing everything they can.
It is silly how many hoops single hobbyist developer has to jump through just to keep their app on the Play Store. Want to provide transit timetables app with publicly available GTFS data? You need to keep proving to Google after each update that you do not represent government and are not affiliated. And they keep asking for privacy policy even in rare case your app actually do not collect any user data and actually works fully offline.
And to make matters worse, there is no easy way to close developer account and just leave Play Store for good.
I honestly couldn't care less if an app is low quality, I'll just uninstall it. I don't think it's feasible to have a system where no apps ever get immediate uninstalled after trying for a few seconds and realizing it isn't what the user wants.
What would be really nice is if they cared when developers push breaking or otherwise trashy updates. I've completely dialed automatic updates because of it. The number of times an app updates and everyone including me tries 1 star reviewing to no avail is too high. Especially with the inability to backdate apks without losing all the on-device data
There's certainly a ton of stuff that ideally should be removed, but they'll automate the selection of apps to remove and obviously there will be false positives and obviously there will be no mechanism to appeal other than hoping your sad story about it goes viral.
I hope they start with the ones which are obviously fraudulent (most likely illegal) and have already been reported to them as such. For example "secure end-to-end-encrypted private chat apps" which actually send messages unencrypted to a web server.
Source: Gave up on trying to be a vigilant netizen and reporting to the black hole.
What? Is that a common problem? And where are those text-only apps anyway? I have installed Termux and some vim app and a few interactive fiction games that are all text. Are those somehow causing trouble by not having enough graphics to look high quality enough for Google?
They _barely_ seem to enforce them. The App Store could probably get a 50% culling with little impact.
There’s TONS of broken garbage, scam apps, least effort apps, blatant ripoffs of blatant ripoffs.
I really liked the idea of a curated App Store when Apple first announced it. In my mind I’ve never lived up to it. Not fully open, not well maintained. The worst of both worlds.
If you write a program that can run on a 386, you can run it easily on your brand-new octa-core Ryzen -- with a whole bunch of other stuff, more than if you had left the program unoptimized.
Similarly, if you build a system that unintelligent people can use, intelligent people have that much more brain power not used up fucking with the system. There are plenty of smart people who don't mind Apple forbidding them from running certain software: they're not interested in running that software in the first place, and it eliminates entire classes of malicious or undesirable software that they simply don't have to worry about.
That's why many of the smartest people I know are all-in on the Apple ecosystem. See graph:
NOOOOO! Muh user freedoms!
------
/ \
-- --
/ \
-- --
/ \
/ \
/ \
Just buy / \ Just buy
Apple ---- ---- Apple
---- ----
To be blunt, most of the stuff that android advocates on social media are excited about is actually just marketing ploys from google.
Example: Google is not any more of a true believer in RCS than anyone else, they literally won’t even bother implementing it in google voice, and their proprietary encryption extensions render it worthless as an interop thing. The point of RCS is to get the EU to mandate RCS support, and sit back and enjoy being the new google-themed iMessage. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
It’s funny to me that people don’t see the rug-pull coming, or that they publish these articles volunteering their own self-identification as a useful idiot who didn’t see it coming.
Your link would, in a sane world, be read as an epitaph or cautionary tale, rather than a slightly puzzled curiosity. Imagine your own reaction if someone had published such an article about apple and not google - how could you have made such a comical error in judgement to trust a giant that would crush you for a nickel, without a second thought?
We’re in this Orwellian place in our discourse though where the language itself is redefined to only apply the harms to the things android don’t like. I had someone tell me yesterday that I was wrong and there was nothing user-hostile about Sony Xperia android phones self-destructing their camera firmware if you unlocked the bootloader, and in fact that I had it diametrically opposite and apple was the apex of user hostility.
I don’t think he’s wrong either. I think that’s how android users think now. Google’s carefully focus-grouped manipulation of the language has legitimately convinced people that user-hostility is some kind of uniquely apple phenomenon, and that “right to repair” means only the right to implement this one exact business model for repair, as opposed to the general goals of long service life and keeping phones out of landfills, etc.
We let google redefine the language in the ways that best accomplish Google’s means and it’s just going to take you all another 15 years to realize you’re still being useful idiots. And even 15 more years still won’t get most of them to admit there’s some pluses to the other side too.
Sad to see fanboyism overtake reason, always. And people don’t tend to consider that fanboyism can be just as much about hatred of the alternatives as support for the thing itself.
See also: every HN thread around nvidia. User-hostility and Linux functionality is solely defined as the things AMD does better at, the fact amd still can’t get working hdmi 2.1 drivers after 5 years or their driver crashing under supported configs running the opencl demo projects doesn’t count. Or when AMD tried to buy their way to FSR exclusivity and lock the competition out of the market, because “FSR works everywhere so it’s better for you in the long run”.
I don’t know how we got to “embrace extend extinguish is good when it’s google, and anti-user when it’s apple” or these other brands but here we are. People are very, very, very susceptible to this “second mover” thing where a competitor gets outlapped, promises they’ll have a free open alternative with hookers and blow, it sucks but all the complaints are dismissed with “it’s free/it’s getting better”, and the solution that works is dismissed as being overly expensive and user-hostile. And it’s all really just embrace-extend-extinguish with libre-themed window dressing. These things are not user-hostile, and they’re good business, and as soon as there’s enough traction the “libre” rug gets pulled and we go back to rcs-with-google-encryption or whatever.
I’m being harsh and blunt but it keeps happening. Stallman-baiting is a thing and you guys just keep falling for it. Is having a commercial relationship with well-defined bounds really that offensive? Is installing altstore to sideload really that offensive?
I don’t mind. Yet. As a developer with some old apps with app serving as unlock keys for example, I do mind in ability to properly dispute or communicate with humans when they claim something on my apps that has been in the store for over 10 years and I don’t have a human to explain it…
there already had been a pattern of google discriminating against such apps
and from a pure monetary sense it makes sense, while for most users such no-nonsense apps are preferable they make little money for Google and compete with apps which do
in a certain way google has motivation to feature _especially_ consumer hostile apps using all kinds of dark patterns to trick, blackmail or outright scam people into paying more
such a bias is probably illegal under the recent (EU) digital markets act as but that is even more motivation for google do kill a lot of such useful apps now before it's more strictly enforced