Google has hindered Android such that app stores cannot compete with the Play Store on feature parity. App stores cannot implement batch installs, background installation or updates, or automatic upgrades, but the Play Store can.

I'm sorry, but that is not true at all. The altnerantive stores available on current phones (Samsung, Huawei, etc.) have all the capabilites of the builtin store.

For all the crap Google does, you really don't have to make things up :/

I think they're referring to the fact that as a user you cannot install a third-party app store with the same capabilities as Google Play, F-Droid can't install apps in the background on a non-rooted device.

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_...

That doesn't change the fact that alternative stores (which exist on many devices) are allowed to install all packages and autoupdate them.

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.

Other stores exist only because Android is open source and any manufacturer can install whatever they want and give any app the features they feel it needs. But there is no way for an app store app to just generally work on all Android devices in an optimal way, without special blessings from all the manufacturers.

Common. Its like saying I will give you earth but no water no winds. Using andriod for monopoly is issue here. Google Playstore can do anything. Its literally the most bloated thing in andriod. And they force mobile vendor like xiomi/samsung to install their playstore. They are just doing what internet explorer 6 thing did.

This must be stopped.

Rooting phones or installing strange ROMs from XDA-Developers isn't something normal users are capable of.

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?

> 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 decide to turn off that security "feature" on the computer I bought?

Why can't I do what I want with my computer???

Sometimes security features are a blunt hammer and it takes time to develop a more nuanced solution. And if it's everything as reported, Android 12 will include this ability.

The claim was:

> 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?

Google has used security as a red herring repeatedly to restrict user rights and suppress the competition, and now they will offer better integration for third-party app stores in Android 12, because governments around the world are breathing down on Google's neck.

As a user, I don't care why they're implementing it, only that it's available. I've been complaining about this exact problem for years, so I'm happy that it is finally getting resolved (if it is getting resolved — Google's statements about what Android 12 will allow have been pretty vague).

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.

True they are just trying to avoid due to government intervention but they will do slowly anyway. But I know andriod 12 third party will definitely comes with many hiccups so user are forced to use playstore anyway.

> Can someone with knowledge on the subject help clarify?

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).

Almost. Just that it's the OEMs that choose to implement AOSP default privilege scheme to please Google so it gives them access to Play Store and all the other Google apps.

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.

Only apps placed in /system/priv-app can install other apps in the background. The only way to add an app there is to be Google or a phone manufacturer, or be an end user, root your phone, and modify the filesystem (directly or through Magisk mounts). Users of unrooted phones can't install apps with the ability to manage other apps.

Are you referring to their respective vendor stores? If so that's not really relevant to the point. A phone vendor can of course get all those capabilities into their own phones. But can I as a consumer install a third-party store on whatever phone I have with those capabilities?

Yes, I'm referring to alternative Android stores you meet right now.

The third-party stores will get these capabilities with Android 12.

Sure, the manufacturer can install their own app store with those features, but that isn't the point. The point is that an end user can't install a third-party app store with those features, at least not without going the root/custom ROM route.

That's basically like saying they are free to distribute their app on their own terms solely in North Dakota.

And also, they put up a big sign telling everyone it's dangerous to go to North Dakota so stay out.

> 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.

I have not had this experience, and I sideload a lot of apps. What sideloaded apps has it offered to remove?

In fact, they already do https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/ in this case, including a donation link on the app listing page

Having an F-Droid version that costs nothing but has a donation link and a Play Store version that is not free is a common monetization pattern for open source projects on Android. See also:

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.

The problem is this is a very inefficient donation: A third of it goes to a greedy for-profit corporation that actively causes societal harm.

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.

> The problem is this is a very inefficient donation:

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.

As an android user I have to turn on untrusted sources in the settings to download outside of the playstore. It actively discourages you.