Why do we keep hearing this without a single developer going forward and suing the hell out of Google? Or Apple by the way.
This was changed in Android 12 (I think) where silent app installation is a grantable permission for other stores like F-Droid.
No need to spread FUD, come on.
Personally I don't mind just hitting update all in F-Droid every now and then so it's no big deal to me, just saying it is functionality only apps with system permissions (meaning pre-installed only if the phone isn't rooted) are allowed to have.
If, as you said in another comment, this will change in Android 12 that's a cool development. I hadn't heard this previously.
Android Pay is easy to get working on a rooted phone you just need to slightly modify one single SQLite database. There are scripts to automate this on xda for certain, I used one before on my old Pixel.
Snapchat though is a lot more tricky yeah, they do their own checks outside of SafetyNet and it's a game of cat and mouse where whenever someone gets around one Snapchat adds five more. But then how many people still use Snapchat these days? Everyone I know just uses IG which works fine on a rooted phone.
It is managed through a simple UI that automates most of this stuff for you, and it also has a library of third party extensions you can install as easy as apps from the Play Store that apply various system mods including the Google Pay hack.
Anyone who cannot work out how to use Magisk is unlikely to have a rooted phone in the first place. As I said, Magisk is the easiest and most common rooting method used these days because it is the most simple and convenient.
> Anyone who cannot work out how to use Magisk is unlikely to have a rooted phone in the first place
True, but my point is that most Android users don't have a rooted phone.
"You just need to slightly modify one single SQLite database" has got to be the most unintentionally amusing thing I've read all week. I'm happy to poke around in the internals of Android, but even most of my developer friends would see a process like that and go "nope, not worth the effort". Ordinary people do not know what SQLite is, or how to run scripts, so a barrier like that is a deal breaker for them.
Although I would argue that these concerns only apply to regular users who wouldn't bother rooting their phones in the first place. Most people who root their phones are willing to run scripts and know they need to be a bit hacky to make stuff work.
Users who are not willing to take that view shouldn't be rooting.
My original point was that a lot of users like this exist, and for these users, all third-party app stores are unfairly inferior.
Most regular users are capable of hitting an update notification manually.
The problem is that we've allowed digital marketplaces to achieve the kind of market power that would make a robber baron blush -- and we're not talking enough about how breaking up FAANG companies into multiple competing companies helps prevent the kinds of harms discussed in the blog above (as well as others).
I purchase software from no less than 5 different digital marketplaces on my computer, but I am all but prevented from downloading software on my phone that does not originate from the Play store. Monopolies are not good for markets.
iPhones on the other hand, yeah very different story.
I wonder if there are grounds for a (reasonable) legal suit here. Anyone in the know that can fill us in?
If this was this company's only revenue stream, chances are they can't survive until such a lawsuit has dragged out to the end.
(Of course some entity needs to fund the lawsuit: if the company cannot, and the lawyers will not take it on contingency, then the shareholders would need to.)
I'm sure there are a multiude of reasons behind why this is. But I think part of it is on some level fight or flight. I am sure for a lot it's just not worth the hassle.
I'm hoping for the day someone does take them to court especially in the EU where they're less likely to put up with the corporate nonsense that the American courts seem to put up with.
Also, there might have been a human review, and it was decided that termination is going to proceed, hence no basis for human to intervene.
"As of July 1, 2010, Quiznos was close to reaching a settlement over the multiyear class-action lawsuit that covers nearly 10,000 of its current and former franchisees. The case comprises four separate class-action lawsuits dating back to 2006 which consolidated in 2009 — involved allegations by attorneys for franchisees that Quiznos Franchise Co. LLC and other entities with ownership or control of the Quiznos chain had violated U.S. racketeering and corruption statutes."