31–40 of 92 posts
Might as well get an iPhone at that point. The fragmentation rate is slight enough to provide for excellent jailbreak support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also download the Total Commander APK from its own site[0] which includes that functionality, as mentioned in the forum post linked by the article this is only for the Play Store version. [0] https://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=76644
Dev should publish TC via Fdroid. I always check for Fdroid versions first. Fdroid are more honest about app perms and policies than Google are.
Fdroid is very close to being the "brew" or "apt" of the Android world, being able to pull updates from multiple sources.
> As mentioned previously, your app (APK versions 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036) causes users to download or install applications from unknown sources outside of Google Play. Google Chrome can download APKs from sources outside of Google Play. By that logic Chrome should also be removed from the play store. Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal?
"Many apps that let you download and open arbitrary files use this installation method, as it’s easier to simply hand off installation to the system Package Installer, which responds to intents to view and install user-acquired APK files. Apps that are sideloaded via browsers, mail clients, and messaging apps usually use this method, hence they’ll be subjected to Android 13’s restrictions."
"Apps can use Android’s new setPackageSource() API to tell the system that the app came from a user-acquired APK via the parameters PACKAGE_SOURCE_LOCAL_FILE or PACKAGE_SOURCE_DOWNLOADED_FILE. This can be used by apps implementing the session-based package installation API to trigger the same behavior when sideloading arbitrary APK files. For example, the Files by Google app uses the session-based API to install apps even though it isn’t an app store. In order to protect users, Files by Google could use the setPackageSource() API to tell the system Package Installer when apps come from user-acquired APKs, thus subjecting those apps to Android 13’s restrictions."
From: https://blog.esper.io/android-13-sideloading-restriction-har...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm confused, I thought the ability to install apps outside of Play is supported by the OS. It is. What this is doing is forbidding apps that can install other apps from being in the Play store. Basically, if Total Commander wanted to give the finger to Google and refuse to remove the function, Google would remove them from the Play store, meaning you'd likely have to either use your browser to find and download th…
Your browser is also an app. A general-purpose file manager is pretty clearly not trying to become an app store.
Alternative app that's not encumbered by the Play Store's rules: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.ghostsq.commander/
Its functionality is hindered by Google in that it can not download and install updates in background as Google Play does. One has to root the phone and loose access to banking and SSO apps to get enough permissions for F-Droid. EU anti-competition monkeys should have looked at that a long time ago.
> As mentioned previously, your app (APK versions 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036) causes users to download or install applications from unknown sources outside of Google Play. Google Chrome can download APKs from sources outside of Google Play. By that logic Chrome should also be removed from the play store. Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal?
He needs to do this: "Many apps that let you download and open arbitrary files use this installation method, as it’s easier to simply hand off installation to the system Package Installer, which responds to intents to view and install user-acquired APK files. Apps that are sideloaded via browsers, mail clients, and messaging apps usually use this method, hence they’ll be subjected to Android 13’s restrictions." "Apps…
That said, that is a really obtuse set of steps you need to go through to enable accessibility features for an app. That's the point, of course, but it is so user unfriendly that it's a little ridiculous.
> As mentioned previously, your app (APK versions 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036) causes users to download or install applications from unknown sources outside of Google Play. Google Chrome can download APKs from sources outside of Google Play. By that logic Chrome should also be removed from the play store. Any antitrust lawyers want to chime in? Why isn't this illegal?
It's unlikely to meet an antitrust threshold because it's a single example of incompetence rather than policy - the Google Play store developer guidelines and agreements do permit this functionality, it's just that there is no functioning review process when people cock up.
You would probably have to demonstrate that it was a systemic problem before you could make anti-trust stick.
This is not legal advice. I am an idiot on the internet and I could say anything on my qualifications and you would have no idea if it were true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your browser is also an app. A general-purpose file manager is pretty clearly not trying to become an app store.
The difference is that the browser can't install the app, AFAIK. You have to open it in a file manager to do that.