Google must crack open Android for third-party stores, rules Epic judge

But third party stores are already allowed and supported on Android?

"Allowed and supported" is something different then "its possible". The article mentions some points that seemingly haven't been "supported" in the past:

Stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on the Google Play Store (the jury found that Google had illegally tied its payment system to its app store)

Let Android developers tell users about other ways to pay from within the Play Store

Let Android developers link to ways to download their apps outside of the Play Store

Let Android developers set their own prices for apps irrespective of Play Billing

Google also can’t:

Share app revenue “with any person or entity that distributes Android apps” or plans to launch an app store or app platform

Offer developers money or perks to launch their apps on the Play Store exclusively or first

Offer developers money or perks not to launch their apps on rival stores

Offer device makers or carriers money or perks to preinstall the Play Store

Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores

Thanks Mr. Epic Judge
- WTF, they can rule Google can't offer perks for exclusivity, but epic does that shit with it's game store.
- So they will have the same judgement for apple right?? And not the same bullshit excuse that since it's even more locked down it's okay for them to do it?
- Play Store
  
  This is all about the Play Store though, it has literally nothing to do with competing stores. I use F-Droid today and there are no restrictions from Google about what apps I can install through that store, whether I can pay for apps through that store (some apps have donation buttons inside), etc. There's nothing stopping Epic from distributing their own app store like F-Droid does even before this decision.
  
  So I really don't understand what "cracking open Android" means here. All that seems to be happening is that Google is restricted from certain actions within its own store, which is absolutely fine by me (I don't use the Play Store), but I don't see any actual changes to Android or third-party app stores.
  
  The closest is this one:
  
  Offer device makers or carriers money or perks not to preinstall rival stores
  
  But Samsung already has its own app store, no? So is there any actual evidence that this was ever a thing?
  
  They should place these restrictions on Apple, not Google, because Apple is the one doing all of this nonsense. Yeah, Google should be reigned in a bit, but they're really not the problem here.
The difference here from my understanding of what I read was that you could now open the Google Play Store and type "fdroid" and the fdroid app could be installed with the single install button.
- Yea that's exactly it, no more side loading needed.
Did you know that if you use the "transfer data from my old phone to the new phone" thing, only the apps installed from Google Play will be carried over? That is, FDroid apps and their data will be lost.
- To be honest even getting data back from an older backup in your same device sucks, since I rooted my phone and got Swift Backup I got one Android issue ticked off (iOS handles the backups way better, now I am looking to customize my lock screen like in iOS, what a crazy world we live isn't it?).
It'll be "allowed and supported" when e.g. you can download F-Droid from the Play Store instead of having to side-load it.
- But doesn't that tie third party stores to the play store more?

Tldr for those who are confused, since Android already does support side loading and even seamless updates for third-party app stores (like Droid-ify, etc), these are mostly legal changes.

Basically Google can't force Google IAP as the only method of payment in apps anymore, can't block companies from advertising how to find them on non-Play Store android app stores. So good changes overall.

Also when you download third party apks, on Android, while it's still relatively easy to do, it does give bit of a scary warning saying security issues are on the user for doing so. This creates the assumption that Play Store is the only secure way to get apps on Android, and the OS gives all sorts of special security exceptions to the Play Store for that. Obviously other secure app stores can exist, so this can be seen as an anti-competitive method since Google is exempt from their own scary apk install message.

COOL, cool…. Hay why was the exact opposite ruled for apple?
- The biggest reason is most likely that the cases had different judges.
- Apple produces hardware for their walled garden, whereas Google imposes their terms on third parties. I can't speak to how this works legally, but thats the main difference as far as I understand.
- How the judges see it:
  
  Google forces conditions onto other OEMs. They have to include a bunch of Google stuff on their phones if they want the play store and play services, which they realistically need, that's just a market reality. They have no real choice but to do whatever Google says. Google is abusing their market dominance to push their ecosystem, and the OEMs have no real choice but to play ball.
  
  Apple doesn't force anybody else to use their products. They make their own ecosystem for their own phone. If iOS was available on non-Apple devices, and Apple was forcing stuff onto those OEMs knowing they have little other choice, Apple would be getting the same treatment.
- Would like to know the answer, but feel like I already know.
This is a wild downplay of this.

The judge is forcing Google to let third party app stores sell and distribute all the apps in the Google Play Store. That s massive.
- You have it backwards. They're putting third party stores on the Play store.
Mostly fair, but I'll push back on the security issue.

Side loading an apk is extremely dangerous, and an easy attack vector.

While there are plenty of malicious apps that make it on the Google store, they do attempt to do some automated and even manual curation. This is fact.

I think it's wholly appropriate to warn the user that they're bypassing that standard, if imperfect, Google security coverage. And granting extensive app permissions is done at your own risk.

3rd party app stores may do their own security curation as well, and it's up to them to communicate that and educate their users on why they still get the Google warning.
- You could make exactly the same argument for installing software onto your computer, it is an attack vector and going through microsoft's store or your distro's repos gives a level of curation. So should desktop users be prevented/scared off from installing what software they want because it's a security issue?
- If malicious apps can make it way to Play Store, this means it is not 100% safe and make it subject to the same security warnings is reasonable, and not give it exceptions and makes it like the only safe option.

That means get rid of that fucking anti-sidoading shit they're flirting with.

My initial reading of the reporting on this ruling suggests it won't do that. App developers can opt out of most of the provisions, but Google may not pressure them to do so.

Cool. Do apple next!

Especially because they already have the infrastructure to do so with the EU’s ruling, so they can’t make any claims about it not being secure or that it’s not possible

If that makes it even easier to get F-Droid installed for the masses, I'm all for it.

There are many things I like about F-Droid, but its UI is awful for a lay person
- droid-ify :)
I installed it, it would kick off updates for hours every day for 3 days straight, and I uninstalled it. What is so good about it for you? I get not getting the apps through advertised crap, but I really dont think this will effect most users at all.
- That sounds like some bug that should not occur and would of course be painfully annoying. The main advantage of it are the apps it provides, though. Some of them are not available in the play store (like NewPipe, a very good YouTube app without adverts, if that is still around). It is also a good place to start if you are looking for some new app for a specific feature, mainly because it consists of free, open source apps and you don’t have to sift through loads of low quality software that is riddled with ads, collects as much data as possible, or requires some obscene subscription fee, if all you wanted was a flashlight or whatever.
- Never had your issue. F-droid let's you have apks brother google doesn't like and won't allow on their own apk store.

wording "crack open" doesn't seems appropriate

next you're going to tell me 'side loading' and 'backdoor access' sound naughty
"If I have to crack open your nuts, I will!"
Maybe it was phrased like that for this very reason.

that is an epic judge right there

He rules

They got the wrong phone OS...

XDA-CHADS, TODAY WE WILL REMIND THEM.

They need to do this on iOS Fr Fr

It mentions decoupling the payment system from the store.

Is this really a good thing? It'll lead to Google relying even more on ad revenue.

if Google wants paid, they can make a compelling and competitive product
- What OS do you use? I haven't run anything different in a long while. The OS on my Galaxy S4 I think was my last OS I replaced