Good.
Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
121–130 of 289 posts
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has to be both to work; the sandbox would fail in a day if there were no review/revocation system.
I'd argue only the revocation is needed. macOS is moving towards that model: every app requires notarization, Apple provides it without asking questions, but reserves the right to revoke the running privileges of any app. This makes so much more sense.
There are certain apps (like Wireguard) that Apple will not notarize for non-App Store distribution.
Basically, for certain classes of apps, macOS is now already taking the iOS "App Store or gtfo" model.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've watched the App Store reviewers try out apps (not in person, from logging) and they do seem to do a pretty thorough job of exercising the functionality.
That makes me wonder how easy it is to just hide certain features during the review process.
It's extremely easy, but it also is extremely easy to get permanently banned if they find out you "switched on" a hidden feature once the app got into production. A permanent ban can be very damaging, so one needs to make sure to be completely legit when it comes to app store submission reviews and app store ratings
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#124The way antitrust is working in recent years is kind of ridiculous. Google in Europe is becoming a rich case study in antitrust meh. You find that adwords engages in a blatant "monopolistic abuse" in some specific sense. In the Adwords EU case for example, Google was both monopsonising (google search) and monopolising search advertising. But, the actual violations are specific, like exclusivity requirements and other…
> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them.
Careful though. A monopoly may abuse its position, which is bad, but a big company may be big because they are good and people use them, which is good.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a) Apple has invested heavily in automated review methods over the years. There was a news here where malware was found on the Apple iOS store, and Apple changed their mind in the last moment and refused to inform the victims. The reality show you (if you want to see) that - malware happens (you can't make automatic analysis code to detect all possible issues ) - Apple users will mostly have a wrong image of the St…
You need register with a real name and credit card and pay 100$ to be able to publish anything on the app store. Irregardless of how effective the review process is even if you manage to sneak any app with malware past it Apple will still be able to remotely remove it from every user’s device and ban your account. This alone make the Appstore inherently safer than any system which would allow side loading. As for cod…
>You need register with a real name and credit card and pay 100$ to be able to publish anything on the app store.
This was done on Windows too, you were not forced but any business would sign their application, otherwise they user would get a scary warning that the developer is not know.
>As for code, they run relatively extensive automatic tests to detect whether private (banned/undocumented) APIs are used, I don’t know how effective they are at catching malware, though.
The sandbox should solve this, unless the Store bans APIs only for some or worse there are hidden APIs that should not be used and the sandbox is to dumb to notice you are using them , then this would be security by obscurity.
This topic is different then most of the other topics about side loading apps, in this case the giant refused to allow an application on the store, or allow access to an API without a good enough reason. This reveals again that rules are not fair and is very hard to get justice for the users.
I would suggest a law to force the giants to give always an exact reason of why an action aganst someone happened, I have personal experience where an account of mine was banned and I have no way to appeal and I have no idea what was wrong. The giants are shitting on us all, as long as the numbers of the victims are low enough some flashy ads would solve their PR problems. We need something to make it fair for the users, make it easy to get our justice.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. I worked at Google on the indexing team from 2006-2010. During that time, I vaguely remember some announcement of a government-funded search engine project in France to beat Google. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the first time France tried a government-funded search engine. I suspect it's more a problem of network effects than it's a problem of money. Google just has so much data at this point that it's r…
The biggest blocker is talent. Who’s going to join the French Government’s Google at 1/3 the pay with no sushi in the cafeteria?
There is plenty of extremely talented people who do not work for Google or any random unicorn in California. Some people prefer to stay where they currently live. And you are not going to make many Frenchmen move continent for an American cafeteria menu.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that the Italian judiciary is incapable of acting independently and impartially?
The majority of italians rate the independence of courts to be poor, which is among the lowest ratings in the EU [1] [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboar...
It would be good to see objective metrics, like how much conviction depends on wealth, etc
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#128A good thing. My business unfortunately rely on the Playstore. Every update we submit I have nightmares about a rejected update or somekind of violation. I am active since the start of the store. On average once every 2 years we have a very serious issue with an app being suspended for a a reason we do not understand. I am lucky to have some ties to people inside Google, otherwise I would probably have lost (no joke)…
Publish your app in F-Droid.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#129Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps…
A true penalty would have been to limit Google Play to 5% commissions for any purchasers or developers in Italy.
Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance
#130Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps…
And a quick reminder to everybody else that walled gardens don't actually help the consumer. They only arbitrarily restrict choice, they don't actually improve security (if any, that's provided by the sandboxing, not by the store "review"). If this company (ENEL) wasn't a huge state-wide electric company (inheriting their power and ties from the previous state-owned monopoly) how many chances do you think they had to…
> And a quick reminder to everybody else that walled gardens don't actually help the consumer.
This is not supported by the article at all.
> They only arbitrarily restrict choice,
This statement is total bullshit. Even if a few scams get through, and even if Google has abused its store, it’s not only arbitrary.
> they don't actually improve security (if any, that's provided by the sandboxing, not by the store "review").
No, Sandboxing cannot stop large classes of well known social engineering scams.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/app-store-stopped-ove...
Here is data proving that walled gardens do in fact protect consumers greatly.
You don’t have to like them, and of course there are downsides, but let’s not pretend there are no benefits.