Hacker News Reader

Comment by e63f67dd-065b | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything.

Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.

View on HN

Third party stores do not have the same functionality as Google's store, this is one of the things Epic sued over, so I imagine it will factor into the remedies.

AuroraStore is very close, using a ton of reverse engineered stuff from the play store

It should all totally be open though

By that measure, F-Droid is very close in that both have the majority of apps some people use (Aurora for you, F-Droid for me).

Neither can compete with the Play store though, as only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background without user interaction (without root). For that matter, only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.

>only Google Play Protect (part of the Play Store IIRC) can uninstall apps from user's devices with no interaction.

That sounds horrible. Why can a store decide to delete an app with no prior notice?

But it does seem Google has given more freedom to other apps to install apps. I guess it comes down to if that's still too many clicks or too fear mongering to count as "competitive".

In my experience Google Play Protect can be disabled, and shows a warning an app might be "Harmful" and sometimes prompts to Uninstall or Ignore the warning, afaik no unprompted uninstalls

It’s a security feature. They’ve had this feature for more than a decade [1].

It allows them to remotely remove any malicious app from Android devices without any user intervention.

1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2752902/google-remotel...

Worse than that, I've had it unilaterally block legitimate third-party apps I've installed from F-Droid. Then since I've disabled it, it constantly nags me to re-enable it so it can re-delete my third-party apps. If you want to talk about anti-competitive, Play "Protect" should be where you start.

> only Google's offering is allowed to update or install apps in the background

Not anymore, since Android 12 (2021).

https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...

You're right! I thought I'd heard something about that, but couldn't quite remember :) From your linked article though:

> in response to mounting pressure from Epic Games and government regulators

Just because it came out before the judgement doesn't mean it wasn't because of the court case. And frankly, needing to be sued to do the not-a-monopoly thing isn't exactly a great look.

Maybe I'm just grouchy because I'll never get to use it though - BlackBerry stopped making handsets, so I'm using either the last great physical keyboard (subjective, but true IMO) while being "stuck" on Android 8.1, or GNU+Linux à la Pinephone Pro.

I don't fully understand. Are these functionalities baked into Android that only allow Play Store to use it?

Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has. That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

Specifically GMS runs as a "privileged app" (that's what priv-apps stands for) which can declare access to permissions in the manifest that non-privileged apps can't even ask for.

Importantly, this is largely a property of preloaded apps rather than GMS explicitly.

Yeah, they are curated by the author(s) of the Android build that the device is running.

> That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

Important to note this has changed starting with android 12, now you just need accept installing the app, and the source can update the app without interaction.

Droidify (third party fdroid client) supports it, among others like Aurora store.

> Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has.

Unnecessarily mind you, GrapheneOs proved that you can get the vast majority of GMS functionality without it needing to run as root. Even Gpay would work if google allowed it.

> That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

This has changed with android 12, third-party sources can now auto update an app after a user accepts the initial prompt go install it.

AFAIU Aurora isn't an alternate store, but an alternate front-end to the Google Play Store.

That is, the only apps available through Aurora are those on Google Play, and if Google's rejected an app, then you won't be able to install it via Aurora.

By contrast, F-Droid is an alternative front-end and app store, with apps available which aren't included in Google Play (for example, Termux).

(I use both Aurora and F-Droid on an Onyx Android device.)

You can install and run apps from Aurora store without having Google Services installed? Did Aurora store replace Google Services somehow? Many apps depend on those services.

Many of the Google Services functionalities can be provided, mimicked, or worked around with microG: https://microg.org/

Google Play is not just app store, but also the only way to efficiently deliver push notifications on Android devices. And latest modifications to Android OS make it very rippled without push notifications, all background apps unload from memory very fast. The result is that it makes many types of apps impossible to implement without relying on push notifications - and lock in to Google Play services.

Same is true for Apple, of course.

While they carry almost the same name, Google Play Services are not the same as the Play Store, though. You can use the former without using the latter.

I highly doubt that a manufacturer can release an Android phone that does not have Google Play Store app but does use Google Play Services. We have evidence that Google prohibits even releasing other models w/out Google Play store if it wants to make Androids with Google Play.

Oh absolutely!

What does google play store have compared to third party stores?

It runs as a privileged app.

It uses that to install new applications and update applications installed by other app stores without the OS-level confirmation, probably can't be uninstalled on most Android OSes and perhaps some other things.

Auto updates can be implemented by other apps without prompt. [0] But you're right on initial install there is that installation confirmation prompt and other stores may be uninstalled.

[0] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...

This was only implemented after the Epic v. Google lawsuit.

Yes, but it's without prompt only for apps that they themselves installed, while Google Play can bypass that.

And we have already seen what happens when third party companies go around the Google Play store.

You might have heard about this little company

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-gam...

It feels like you're trying to use the existence of some criminal acts as a justification for a different set of criminal acts.

So, yes, when users literally own their own devices, it is difficult for the manufacturer to keep them perfectly secure without abusing monopoly power.

The door also swings the other way here too, because malware has certainly existed _inside_ the Play Store, and it took _users_ to bring it to the billion dollar corporations attention.

You realize the same company suing Google and saying that allowing third party app stores is the same company that actually introduced a vulnerability by doing so?

The entire value proposition of the App Store is the sandbox.

But Android security sucks either way

Sandboxing had nothing to with any app store, and Android security empathetically doesn't suck.

I just had a coworker say that he surreptitiously installed an app on his son’s phone that allowed him to see everything his son was doing remotely and listen in to his son’s conversations. He showed it to us in action.

It's a difficult security model when the threat actor is a parent who presumably has access to the device and in an unlocked state along with permissions to install anything from anywhere. It's not like the threat actor realistically couldn't (with some effort) see everything the child was doing already just by asking so I don't really see this as a very good threat model.

Sure, Apple might prevent you from installing such applications on devices (though they offer monitoring app usage and websites for parental controls), but that's just because they have a walled garden that could disallow such apps and it's less clear how to weigh app freedom against user safety.

If you're worried about zero days, Android exploits are priced around the same as iOS exploits apparently so take that how you will.

It’s not a zero day. It’s insecure by design. There is a huge difference between parental control and snooping.

You really think you are going to ask a child what are they doing every second and what they talked about and they are going to tell the truth?

What’s stopping someone also from surreptitiously installing the same snooping software on another adult’s phone?

It’s not less clear. There is no reason to allow this type of software to be installed on a phone without a clear indication that it is on there.

> You really think you are going to ask a child what are they doing every second and what they talked about and they are going to tell the truth?

Of course not, but usually adults can force a passcode out (or take the device altogether) or force the child to sign in for them to see at regular intervals, in which case they can observe everything. I would agree that this is excessive for a parent to do, but clearly the parent you are talking about is already taking excessive measures.

> What’s stopping someone also from surreptitiously installing the same snooping software on another adult’s phone?

Presumably, an attacker will not have access to the device and not be freely given the password or access with the ability to install an app. If they do, then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just going through the phone. Installing a app without the person's knowledge would either require you to have inside access or have a zero day.

> It’s not less clear. There is no reason to allow this type of software to be installed on a phone without a clear indication that it is on there.

A lot of the permissions individually make sense and this software could just be composed by a significant number of them. I'm not sure exactly how the software you are referring to works and its scope, so I'll take a narrow example.

In the case of messages, users may legitimately want a different messaging app. If the adult just side loads an arbitrary SMS app, how is that supposed to be distinguishable to the OS whether the app additionally happens to sync these messages to a third party?

In the case of screen capture, that's a perfectly normal use case to stream your screen. Android does warn you when this is occuring.

Or for that matter, many Android devices permit side loading an entire OS. This could be used by the adult to basically bypass any restrictions on apps altogether. This has a completely legitimate use case. Should we block that as well?

Even if the parent “forces a passcode”, they can’t remotely listen in on conversations and see exactly what their child is doing at any given minute.

> Presumably, an attacker will not have access to the device and not be freely given the password or access with the ability to install an app.

Are you really unaware of what a jealous partner can do?

> A lot of the permissions individually make sense

In what world does a permission to “remotely monitor your screen and intercept your voice and hide that the app is installed make sense”?

> A lot of the permissions individually make sense and this software could just be composed by a significant number of them. I'm not sure exactly how the software you are referring to works and its scope, so I'll take a narrow example.

Maybe it’s a bad idea to allow a third party app to have access to your SMS messages especially seeing they are often used for 2FA?

> In the case of screen capture, that's a perfectly normal use case to stream your screen. Android does warn you when this is occuring.

And yet there are plenty of apps for Android that can do this surreptitiously…

You realize you aren’t making a great case for Android here don’t you?

If you own a device you can do whatever you want with it. Can you install surveillance cameras in your own home? If yes, then I don't know why you can't install surveillance software on your own device.

Without any indication that it’s on there? Would you feel the same way about an abusive partner installing software surreptitiously on their wife’s/husband’s phone?

That's like saying Linux is insecure because sudo exists.

Yes and because of Linux’s “openness” it’s being used by most people as their main desktop OS and in the US 60% of the market are buying iPhones. Have you thought that their priorities aren’t the same as yours?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I’m saying that

A) most people don’t care about openness based on their revealed preference

B) if you do care, you are free to choose a more “open” choice

Surely most people care at least enough about openness to want to be able to install apps on their phone. Your threat model is considering an authorized user installing an app to be a security breach.

This sounds suspiciously similar to the “evil maid” attack: all bets on security are off when you’ve got physical access to the device. This is a well known weakness in all platforms. Some platforms manage short term protections against this, but nothing ever withstands it in the long run.

If the adult demanded the kid's phone password, it's rubber hose cryptanalysis. If the adult set up the password for the kid, it's a supply chain attack. Evil maid implies you don't know the password at all, which doesn't sound like the case here.

Having the kids password doesn’t allow the parent to see real time what the kid is doing every second and remotely monitor them.

Android has privacy indicators for when software is recording things on the phone. Wouldn't that give the coworker away? Or does his son just have an old phone? (The privacy indicators are fairly new, IMO, but it mirrors a thing Apple did a few years ago.)

Compare this to a desktop. The desktop spyware will be even more capable than the mobile spyware.

And these sorts of child-tracking (and sadly, abused-partner-tracking) apps exist on both Android and iOS platforms.

What “child tracking” device on iOS lets you intercept phone calls, text messages and remotely monitor in real time what someone is doing on their phone?

The 30% is only an issue for the jury in the context of the trial where it stands to gain against competing stores.

The jury did not set precedent that 30% fees in and off themselves are bad. It has very little relevance to Apple or other single market platforms (consoles etc) since they have no competing store product.

An interesting effect could be to have more devices that don't have the Play Store by default, and Google providing sanctioned ways for the customer to add the Play Store as a choice.

Force them to spin out the play store.

> Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.

It's a somewhat different situation with Apple.

You can't buy iOS on a non-Apple phone; and a quick Google search has the iPhone at about 22% of the market.

In the US, where the case was decided, it's about 50%.

Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel.

I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I certainly do so and so do my parents who haven't had an issue with random apps scamming them and stealing their card details or passwords.

I really don't understand the negative sentiment against Apple - guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers and we are not really touching those or being that vocal which to me shows that it's not really a moral stance and it's a "my profits are affected stance".

Just require that apps have to (non-exclusively) support Apple billing to be in the Apple store.

Then you can (personally) choose to never break the glass to install something from outside the store.

> really don't understand the negative sentiment against Apple

I just want them to be better.

They take 15-30% of my gross revenue and are the source of most of my stress (through regular rejections of my app updates). It would be nice if they charged less and stopped rejecting me for mentioning Android in my app copy.

The problem is that this "choice" in iOS is an illusion, if both Google and Apple employ user-hostile, monopolist tactics. That's like saying someone chooses to stay with an abusive guardian when the only alternative, foster care, brings its own sets of challenges.

I'm curious, do you have an Amazon subscription or any of the dozens of other major subscriptions that didn't go the AppStore route because of Apple' policies ?

I'm not sure at any point I experienced a "cancel all my subscriptions" in a single place, even as I was neck deep in the Apple ecosystem.

Just yesterday I stopped a handful of subscriptions all at once and it was excellent that there was a third party disinterested in trying to retain my business giving me a nice list of everything and a button to stop them. If I can subscribe through Apple Pay for anything, I will. It would be great if a bank had a workflow as nice as that.

>I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel.

You could STILL do that if that does happen on Apple. No one forces you. It just gives people more choices. Choices are good.

Not if every app decides to implement their own in app subscription in order to make it harder for me to cancel or dispute. And then move their app to not the App Store. Apple provides a common playground for every app. You need to provide these things to your customers or you can play with them. I like it because it forces developers to adhere to some standards. Like for example not tracking me and not building only the subscription start part but have the cancellation behind an email I need to send.

Apple forbids developers from even telling their customers that it's costing them 30% more.

> guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers

Some five billion people have a smart phone [1]. For many it's the primary way they access the Internet.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/203734/global-smartphone....

A lot of ppl have ovens or calculators or cheap smart tvs doesn’t make them general computing devices.

"Monopoly is actually pretty cool" is definitely a new one but I guess it's par for the course on this site.

Is it worth it to pay 30% more for everything in order to have that convenience?

Even if you think it is, other people might disagree. Apple prevents app creators from even mentioning that you can purchase content or subscriptions in a web browser instead.

I just want to be able to use the hardware I already paid for without Apple taking a cut of everything I do on it.

But you knew exactly the contract you are getting into and still went ahead with it.

Also Apple take around 15% from most developers.

Also it’s not really about providing choice given that developers will flock to the lowest % store and it doesn’t matter if that store siphons personal data. My main problem with this is that the push comes from profit margins and not care about the users and that is pretty obvious if you ask the why question a few times

> If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product.

This would make a lot more sense in a world where users have more choice. If you want to make this argument, you probably need regulators to step in and enforce standards and interoperability such that consumers have more choice, along more different axes than they currently do (2-ish operating systems, determined by the hardware you buy).

> If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product.

If no iOS user wants a 3rd party store, no one will install them, all of them will fail and we wouldn't be talking about this.

So why are Apple so afraid of a little competition? I think some iOS users (me) are willing to use other stores. And that's why Apple blocking it is anti-competitive.

One plausible argument is that Apple is afraid of other parties competing unfairly; if apps can ship outside the App Store - and, critically, if they can thereby bypass some of the restrictions Apple imposes through their review process - then ex. Google and Facebook could ship apps that do bad things (probably privacy related) and abuse their own market positions to coerce people into using such apps. Given that this doesn't happen on Android, it might well not be a problem, but Google already does anything they want on Android and arguably the restrictions that companies would want to bypass just don't exist there so it may or may not be a useful point of comparison.

A different angle is: If a user wants a 3rd party app store, why did they buy an iOS device?

(To be clear, I'm not really convinced either way at this point; I'm throwing out what I think are reasonable arguments but that doesn't mean I'm convinced there aren't good counterarguments to them)

> If a user wants a 3rd party app store, why did they buy an iOS device?

Wants and circumstances can change over time. When I purchased my device, Fortnite and Xbox Cloud Streaming were available from the Apple App Store. Now they aren't.

Also I can want more out of my device; none of my devices are perfect but I still buy them. I believe 3rd party stores would be an improvement to my device. Replace the feature "3rd party app store" with folding phone: "Why did they purchase an iOS device if they wanted a folding phone" is a leap in logic to "No iOS user wants a folding phone"

A year ago, I'd say USB-C, but that's no longer the case.

> if they can thereby bypass some of the restrictions Apple imposes through their review process

Those same restrictions are blocking apps like Xbox Cloud Streaming. When Apple chooses to block those, but I still want access to apps, 3rd parties providing the such apps isn't unfair competition.

> guys, it's a phone/tablet. The consoles are much more like a General Purpose Computers and we are not really touching those

I mean, I'm on board with using video game consoles as proper computers as well, but my phone literally has gcc installed so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It’s not a general purpose device, it’s a phone. The only reason why anyone is pushing for this is because their profits are affected and they do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to justify it. If Apple tomorrow says 0% fees - 90% of the developers are going to say YES we did it. But in reality no new user freedoms were gained or choice to the user was provided. It’s an assumption but everyone always talks about the % being high and given that there are more app developers than console developers it seems like it’s not a mindset but just a “it hurts my profit margins” which has 0 benefit for the user.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com