One wonders which side will win this one? All I know is, I still want my F-Droid with apps that Google doesn't have power over.
On one end they are trying to fight the requirements for alternative app stores and making them as hard as possible to use.
On the other end they are trying to put hooks so that they can block installations of apps from other app stores.
Then they hope that regulation will take longer to dislodge the various methods they are using to retain control.
It's still possible to install any app with a warning. A future Google Android build will require developer mode to be enabled to install those apps. That is the problem to address, not app verification, which will be rolled out as a Google Play Services update to existing Google Android builds and makes it strictly easier to install apps than before.
That is already required to list an app on the Play Store. What app verification means is that if you've done that, you don't have to distribute through the play store. People can install your app (or app store) from your website and not get a scary warning about whether to allow installs for apps downloaded from your browser, as required by the judge's ruling. Nothing else changes. People who complain to their legislators about app verification will get laughed at. I already explained what they should complain about instead.
Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
If you lobby for something that is obviously nonsensical, you are wasting your time. I am educating people in order to prevent them from wasting their time and hopefully accomplish something useful instead.
> Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
If you use a Google Android build, your life gets strictly easier because of app verification. That's what I'm on about.
You didn't even provide a reason why it is "obviously nonsensical".
App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
After app verification, exactly the same. Nothing changes about what app stores can do.
> App verification does not "allow" anything
It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install. Prior to app verification , the user had to click through a dialog to go to settings to allow installation from the app that triggered the install.
> You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
Exactly right. The broader environment was that Google was forced to allow installation of apps outside of system app stores without the user having to tap through a warning dialog. This is the solution to that problem.
No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.
> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.
... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.
> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.
It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
As I said in my first comment, that change is separate from app verification.
> which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification
It was not. Read the rest of that sentence beginning with "without."
> App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
App verification is required to allow installing apps outside a system app store without any warning to the user, as required by the ruling.
And that is the problem. Google can just deny anything that does stuff in a creative new way or that poses a competitive risk.
And, if Google decides you are not comming in, there is no warning you can click to go around that.
Two errors:
1. Google only gets to determine what app verification allows without warning on Google builds of Android.
2. You can still install unverified apps.
Wrong. That's what the company wants. App verification isn't needed for anything, and a "rival app store" is just another app store and should be treated as such.
No, the whole point of using an alternative app store is to get better deals for developers or end users. Apps that are not approved by Google can still be installed. The whole point of app verification is to allow installation outside a system app store (e.g., directly from a website or from another app store) without any scary warnings, as required by the judge's ruling.
All Google Android builds show a scary warning before you can install apps outside the system app stores. That's why the judge's ruling required Google to do away with the scary warning, leading to app verification, which accomplishes what the judge required. If you don't use a Google Android build, neither app verification nor the new unknown source installation flow affect you.
Instead, as I pointed out in my original comment, we need to complain about the upcoming "advanced flow" for unknown source app installation. It should not but does require enabling developer mode. It should and does save the user's preferences for unknown source installation across device updates.