For all the crap Google does, you really don't have to make things up :/
Device manufacturers are of course allowed to ship with alternative app stores, though Google is also trying to interfere with those decisions by holding access to Google Play Services as ransom, even if the practice was previously deemed illegal by the European Union.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
Just _your pet_ store doesn't get it because silently replacing app packages would be a horrible security hole for software. Nevertheless, F-Droid will be able to do just that with Android 12.
This must be stopped.
If I buy a LG phone, can I install the Samsung or Huawei store and use the features that the Play Store has without rooting my phone or using a weird ROM?
Why is it that if I want to use an app store that works on every Android device like F-Droid, I need to root my phone to have some feature parity with the Play Store?
Because silently replacing software on your phone is a very problematic safety vector.
To the point where Apple doesn't allow granting that to anyone ever.
Why can't I do what I want with my computer???
> app stores cannot compete with the Play Store on feature parity
The response was:
> that is not true at all
There are plenty of follow up remarks that then clarify that it is infact true in some cases (e.g. F-Droid today) and not true in others (e.g. Samsung store today).
One of the claims made is that it's a security issue to allow alternative stores to silently replace software on your phone (also known as auto updates), and also that this feature is coming in Android 12.
It sounds like Android 11 does not allow a fair level playing field (for what may be justifiable security concerns), and Android 12 throws those security concerns out of the window.
Can someone with knowledge on the subject help clarify?
Also, as far as I know, Google hasn't used the security excuse for not implementing it. I just assumed that this wasn't going to get prioritized over OS features that enable Google to make more money.
Installing apps silently (as an app store) requires so-called "Privileged" Android premissions currently. Privileged permissions are only attainable by apps that are preinstalled on Android distribution - which means that Samsung/Huawei/other stores can get it, but it's not available for apps that aren't part of original OS distribution.
So the playing field isn't level for ALL the potential Stores - Google gives these privileges to the OEMs that built the devices and them only.
Android 12 will add a mechanism to get these capabilities but it's currently not clear how (whether it's a permission on first run, or whether it's going to be available to a single app like the SMS related permissions).
IMHO the leverage is all on the OEM side, they just choose to focus on hardware and allow Google to manage the software.
Independent stores is something that was not really a thing before Android so we are figuring out as we go.
Debian third party repos probably come close, but that is for tech savvy folk that know that they are doing. Now design that for your grandma.
The third-party stores will get these capabilities with Android 12.
And also, they put up a big sign telling everyone it's dangerous to go to North Dakota so stay out.
That's such an apt analogy, considering that Google Play Protect will helpfully offer to remove sideloaded apps every chance it gets, citing security.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.gcompris.f... vs. https://f-droid.org/packages/net.gcompris.full
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mkulesh.mi... vs. https://f-droid.org/packages/com.mkulesh.micromath.plus
When Google gives me free Play Store credit, I often "donate" it this way.
If you're using Play Store credit for it, sure, nobody but Google is paying the bill. But for everyone else who buys the app, it's a pretty poor donation method.
How is it inefficient? Google gave me that money for free, and I sent 70% of it to the project and 30% back to Google.
> A third of it goes to a greedy for-profit corporation that actively causes societal harm.
Also wrong. Less than a third of it goes to anybody but the app publisher. Of the 30% that doesn't go to the app publisher, some portion goes to the payment processor (usually card processor or mobile service provider, only Google if you pay with credits).
> But for everyone else who buys the app, it's a pretty poor donation method.
They can also donate via F-Droid, as I showed in my post. The fact that it costs anything at all on the Play Store encourages users to get the app from the author directly or from F-Droid, both of which give the app away for free and can show preferred donation links. They get to benefit from wide distribution and discovery via Play Store and better monetization via donation links. Compare to iOS, where the open source authors are screwed.