[anilgulecha]

I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor".

With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this.

PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

[econ]

I thought the same thing but he apparently has a point. The stated purpose covers only a tiny sliver of the capabilities. The agreement points to the TOS where it (last time I looked) says service may be terminated at any time without stating a reason. Nothing guarantees it won't be used for things other than security. And finally he has a point where it also doesn't really do much for security.

If we ask their fine search engine, the AI helpfully explains malware to be software designed to gain unauthorized access to disrupt, extort payments and/or hijack devices.

If you still think the shoe doesn't fit, imagine what would happen if one managed to create an app with the same capabilities. Google would remove it immediately for being malware. Obvious malware.

[r_lee]

I'd usually say it'd be far fetched

but I can totally see Google banning developers and removing their apps for political reasons, where some lobbying group bombs them with emails

because with this they're explicitly saying they're now choosing who gets to be in or out, there's no way for them to say we can't do anything about it

I do think this would improve security, but I also think it's sort of a Trojan horse to lock down the ecosystem

[nok22kon]

> several Russian mobile apps related to the Russian internet company VK were deleted from the U.S. tech giant's App Store.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-demands-explana...

[surajrmal]

Banning it from the app store is different from banning from distributing their app on any surface. It's closer to Walmart choosing to not carry a product vs the government saying no one may carry that product. Of course both can happen for political reasons but generally the latter is a bigger hammer applied less often.

[r_lee]

my point still stands, the problem is, now instead of Google saying "we can't do anything about it" any lobbying/political group can go and say "well you could just ban it, does this mean you approve of this app?"

it's like how credit card companies can shut down porn sites overnight by citing their terms of service

[stingraycharles]

Isn’t Google going to do what Apple has been doing since forever? Or is Google somehow doing something worse?

[jb282]

Apple's policies were established when you purchased the phone. Apps come through registered developers and their vetting.

Google has changed the game on something you already own. I'm sure their lawyers have done their homework, but in some jurisdictions this is certainly actionable.

[someonebaggy]

They already lost a lawsuit and were fined a hundred billion dollars in the EU for locking down Android. Maybe they think since they already lost once, they can't lose again.

[WarmWash]

Google had an open (but maybe not perfectly open) platform and is paying out billions in anti-competitive fines because of it.

None of the other platform vendors with totally closed platforms are paying out anything.

So with even a room temperature business IQ, it's pretty clear that closed platforms are the best way to do business, and court rulings in both the US and EU have affirmed this multiple times over the last decade.

[zelphirkalt]

Well, they can't have it both ways. They can either have the more open platform, and continue to get techies to use them as simple convenience tools, serving as advertisers of Google indirectly, or they can be more closed and not even have that initial trust.

Google could only grow like it did, because they did things differently.

Other tech giants pay fines for other crimes. For example Facebook once had to pay a record high 5 billion for violating consumers' privacy. It is not surprising, that different companies with different products pay fines for different things.

[someonebaggy]

They are paying fines for trying to close their open platform. Microsoft isn't because their platform is still open enough, and Apple isn't because it was always closed and everyone who bought it knew it was closed.

[surajrmal]

This is the remediation to that case and therefore has already been run by the EU. Notably, Apple did not get fined for the way they run their ecosystem which is far more locked down.

[hurfdurf]

Hundred billion would be a quarter's revenue, that can't be right. The lasest I've read is a threat of a fine of around 500mil wrt app store issues back in December, but nothing has been decided yet.

[r_lee]

hundred billion?

[RobotToaster]

I bought an android instead of an apple because I didn't want the kind of malware apple has always shipped with idevices

[lern_too_spel]

No, you're still allowed to install whatever apps you want, whether they're verified or not, from the system app stores or not. What developer verification brings is the ability to install apps outside the system app stores without a warning, as required by the antitrust judgment against Google.

People here are complaining about a separate thing, which is that the process for installing an app outside a blessed way is changing, becoming harder for the first such installation and easier for subsequent installations on new devices.

[nok22kon]

nothing guarantees the Microsoft/Apple/Ubuntu/RedHat will not push an update through their infrastructure to delete some software from your computer

all OSes have malware level capabilities. it's literally the definition of an OS

[kuschku]

> Ubuntu/RedHat

That still wouldn't affect projects like Debian or Arch, but going even further, they can't push through updates anyway. Nothing forces me to install updates, it's an active choice to do so.

[econ]

Some day the right evil person will gain access to these things and use these fascinating capabilities. I hope it will take a long time.

In the meantime we might try think of a solution.

[0x53]

I think the point they are trying to make is that in the terms of service Google says they get to define what is malware (halfway through article) so the author is trying to point out that exact danger: what happens when Google gets to randomly call things malware.

[PufPufPuf]

The article provides enough evidence for that label. Unlike Google, who can arbitrarily call anything "malware". This is the contrast the article attempts to point out.

[realusername]

I have the opposite opinion, Google is doing a lot of garbage in the name of "Security", time to play their game and report their control on Android as security vulnerability