Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Can't Remove Third-Party App Store Aptoide From Users' Android Phones, Portuguese Courts Rule (prnewswire.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Earlier this week, the Portuguese Courts ruled a decision against Google in relation to the injunction filed by Aptoide, a popular third-party app store. It is applicable on 82 countries including UK, Germany, USA, India, among others. Google will have to stop Google Play Protect from removing the competitor Aptoide's app store from users' phone without users' knowledge which has caused losses of over 2.2 million users in the last 60 days. From a press release: The acceptance of the injunction is totally aligned with Aptoide's claim for Google to stop hiding the app store in the Android devices and showing warning messages to the users. Aptoide is now working alongside its legal team to next week fill in courts the main action, demanding from Google indemnity for all the damages caused. Aptoide, with over 250 million users, 6 billion downloads and one of the top stores globally, has presented this July, a formal complaint to the European Union's anti-trust departments against Google.

77 comments

  1. WTH was google thinking? by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google's android smartphones are NOT closed (like Apple's) and never have been. Their attempt to forcibly remove a competitor store even IF installed by a vendor in violation of contract and not the users themselves Is completely unethical (they won't even force OS updates for security but, by GOD, they'll reach out to your phone to take out a competitor!).
    They're the Microsoft Windows of the smartphone industry trying to uninstall Mozilla.
    Expect Google to just start making their own phones here very quickly.

    1. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google is Evil.

      Apple is too.

      It's time for more mobile device choices.

    2. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    3. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTH was google thinking? Maybe they looked at Apples stock price and got a little jealous

    4. Re: WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Apple was in your face....

      Google is being a complete hypocrite

    5. Re:WTH was google thinking? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Androids key feature over Apple iOS isn't anything technical but the fact you can get outside of the box applications for it. The types of things that Apple will just not allow, because they are afraid of legal action, or just isolating the big names. Because you may have a hard time trying to get Nintendo to make games for your phone, if you happen to offer a ROM emulator as well.
      Or giving us a programming language interpreter however this could potentially cause security problems.
      Now risks come with reward.
      Apple gets rid of a lot of risk, but sometime we want the reward.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want Windows Phone back...

      How is it we live in the quantum reality where Microsoft is the most benevolent and most able to update a broad portion of their portfolio in lock-step?

    7. Re: WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another google faeces deployed to the bed

    8. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Envious

    9. Re: WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Apple was in your face....

      Google is being a complete hypocrite

      There is no difference whatsoever.
      Both of these companies are fucking you.

    10. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I must have missed the part where Microsoft tried app store on Windows 10, and monitored every keystroke, vocalization, and screen caps uploaded to their servers, and multiple desktops, preparing you for desktop virtualization into the(eir) cloud.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even IF installed by a vendor in violation of contract

      Think about that for a minute, seriously. The whole reason you have a contract is so that both parties know and agree to the terms. If a vendor agrees to it, then violates it, then they are up shit creek. The only thing of note here is that google didn't take the vendor to court and sue them into infinity. So 90% of your outrage has just been reduced to lies as FUD.

      Now if the users themselves installed a competitor store and google removed it you would have a valid point. But that's such an insignificant part of your statement it may as well not even been included in the sentence.

    12. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      The users are not bound by a contract between Google and $vendor_x. They have NO RIGHT to remove anything installed on the phone, when installed outside of the Play framework.

      Your logic is like this. I buy a house. Vendor signed a deal with a furnace company, to not use any products from company $y. Furnace company finds out the house has a breaker box from company $y in it, as sold... *breaks* into the house after it is sold, removes the breaker box, and leaves.

      Now lights / etc don't work.

      Just like apps downloaded from the competitor's store no longer work.

      That's why they EASILY obtained a court injunction, against such absurd tactics by Google.

      See .. Google thinks they own Android. They don't. The never have. It's open source.

      They own key parts of the play store, and their own apps -- that's IT... and they keep pushing that too far.

    13. Re:WTH was google thinking? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Please - think before you post. The article doesn't state the exact conditions here which is why I stated "even IF". IF the vendor installed the software in violation of the contract then Google has every right to sue the vendor for damages and revoke their contract. It does NOT have the right to just go out and pre-emptively delete the offending software from the users phones before even taking the vendor to court and even upon winning it would be the Vendor's responsibility to notify the customer that the software was in violation and make restitution to the customer - NOT GOOGLE.
      That's because Android is an OPEN PLATFORM. Google doesn't control the phones or even the software on them. It licenses Android for installation (as Microsoft does with Windows) but the phone and the software on it is strictly a contract between the vendor and the customer. This is unlike Apple which controls all aspects of the iPhone (hardware, software and customer contact).
      Google DOES have control over the Play store and the apps installed from it - but not apps you installed yourself or from the vendor.

    14. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Google mistook Aptoide for a Chinese citizen...

    15. Re:WTH was google thinking? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Expect Google to just start making their own phones here very quickly.

      Google do make their own phones....

    16. Re:WTH was google thinking? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Androids key feature over Apple iOS isn't anything technical but the fact you can get outside of the box applications for it. The types of things that Apple will just not allow, because they are afraid of legal action, or just isolating the big names. Because you may have a hard time trying to get Nintendo to make games for your phone, if you happen to offer a ROM emulator as well.
      Or giving us a programming language interpreter however this could potentially cause security problems.
      Now risks come with reward.
      Apple gets rid of a lot of risk, but sometime we want the reward.
      Flag as Inappropriate

      Except since iOS 10 or 11, iOS has supported sideloading. Granted, it's fairly limited (officially, only from source code - Apple doesn't care about license (sorry people who wanted to see RMS's head explode from proprietary OS enforcing open-source rules) but does want you to build from source, no binaries). The people who make f.lux attempted to use this loophole but Apple stopped them - no source code.

      However, there are plenty of apps on Windows that will let you sideload to iOS as well, binaries even.

      And there's a thriving "app store" for those who would build from source - emulators and other stuff.

    17. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is Evil.

      Apple is too.

      It's time for more mobile device choices.

      That is not how you do haiku.

    18. Re:WTH was google thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how I like 'em...and I suggest ya have 'em the same way! (sorry about the jumbled wall of text, Slashdot would not accept it when it was neatly formatted)

      OS: LineageOS (XDA Forums), Activity tracker: Loop Habit Tracker, Ad blocker: AdAway, Appstore: F-Droid & Yalp Store, Audiobook player: Voice, Calculator: LineageOS stock or Simple Calculator, Calendar: Simple Calendar (Offline, local calendar), Camera: LineageOS stock or Simple Camera, Clock: Simple Clock or LineageOS stock, Contacts: Simple Contacts or LineageOS stock, Document scanner: Open Note Scanner, Document viewer: Document Viewer, Drawing: Simple Draw, Email: K-9 Mail, Feed reader: Flym, File Manager: Simple File Manager and DiskUsage, Game: Shortyz & SolitaireCG, Gallery: Simple Gallery or LineageOS stock, Launcher: LineageOS stock, Loyalty card: Loyalty Card Keychain, Maps: OsmAnd+, Messenger: Delta Chat and Meshenger, Music player: Simple Music Player or Vanilla Music or LineageOS stock, Netcast client: SoundWaves or AntennaPod, Notes: Simple Notes, Password manager: KeePassDroid, Sensor test: Sensor Readout, SMS: Silence, Spirit level: Bubble, Star chart: Sky Map, Television killer: TV KILL, Terminal emulator: Termux, Unit converter: Unit Converter Ultimate, Web browser: Private Browser or

    19. Re:WTH was google thinking? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I though android also had something else going for it. I went to an embedded Linux conference that had an android app that would let you see the schedule, plan the sessions you wanted to attend and a few other things. In the opening session they explained that there wasn't a matching app for iOS, though not due to a lack of effort.

      The conference included an android mini-conference. Apple wouldn't allow it in the app store. The recommendation from the speaker ...
      "Use a more open platform...?"

  2. Doesn't go far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with ruling: Google should not stop user from any appstore.

    I hope it will extend to Apple as well. They are even worse!

    Unless user fight to preserve control, tech companies will control all computing and we will have nothing but walled garden, like sheep doing what corporate masters tell.

  3. Applicable Outside Portugal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earlier this week, the Portuguese Courts ruled a decision against Google in relation to the injunction filed by Aptoide, a popular third-party app store. It is applicable on 82 countries including UK, Germany, USA, India, among others.

    Could someone please explain why a Portuguese court decision applies anywhere other than in Portugal?

    1. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Portugal is an EU Member State. At the very least, it applies to any country that is a member of the European Union.

    2. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While not the original poster I figured that it would be applicable in the EU but I got lost at the USA and India parts. The article is pretty thin on details and only mentions that it was an EU National court ruling so I fail to see how that makes it applicable in the US or outside of the EU. I am not well versed in EU law so even there I just assume that this ruling would be applicable EU wide but don't know if that is actually the case.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 0

      While not the original poster I figured that it would be applicable in the EU but I got lost at the USA and India parts. The article is pretty thin on details and only mentions that it was an EU National court ruling so I fail to see how that makes it applicable in the US or outside of the EU. I am not well versed in EU law so even there I just assume that this ruling would be applicable EU wide but don't know if that is actually the case.

      The article said the in junction applies to 82 countries. The court is making an extraterritorial power grab that would have the EU up in arms in a non-EU court tried the same thing. While Google is clearly in the wrong here; allowing a court in one country one region, absent treaty agreements or a union like the EU, is not a good idea.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Cesare+Ferrari · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure it applies across Europe either for that matter.

    5. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That at least makes 2 of us. I was hoping someone could chime in and explain things so that my understanding would be expanded.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      You are reading a press release from Aptoide, not an opinion of the court.

    7. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Brexit is sounding better and better.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by truedfx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's about protecting the rights of Aptoide, a Portuguese entity, against the actions of Google, a business with a legal presence in Portugal. If Google only violates Aptoide's rights outside Portugal, a Portuguese court can still take action against that: having to respect the rights recognised or granted by a country to its citizens and companies is part of the cost of doing business in that country. If a US-based app store sued Google for the same reason, and a US court ruled that Google had to stop interfering, even outside the US, no, I do not believe there would be any uproar.

    9. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously want Googles hot meaty rod up you. The rest of us, not so much.

    10. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You, for one, welcome our new Portuguese bendajo judge overlords!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Google Play itself is available in 145 countries, so if the injunction is only affecting 82 countries, that probably means some kind of treaty must be limiting its scope.

    12. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      It's about protecting the rights of Aptoide, a Portuguese entity, against the actions of Google, a business with a legal presence in Portugal. If Google only violates Aptoide's rights outside Portugal, a Portuguese court can still take action against that: having to respect the rights recognised or granted by a country to its citizens and companies is part of the cost of doing business in that country. If a US-based app store sued Google for the same reason, and a US court ruled that Google had to stop interfering, even outside the US, no, I do not believe there would be any uproar.

      I'm not sure. US Courts require US based companies to provide records to law enforcement, even if the records are outside the US; an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling. Even in cases where the underlying reason is justifiable, I find the idea that a countries court can enforce actions outside its borders problematic; unless as I pointed out there is some sort of treaty or agreement to so do.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by truedfx · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. US Courts require US based companies to provide records to law enforcement, even if the records are outside the US; an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.

      That's a good point, but that's not so much because it requires an action to be done in that country, it's because that action potentially conflicts with the rights of the non-US people whose data is held in those records. There's no such conflict here.

    14. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.

      The only reason that has caused consternation is because handing over the data was deemed illegal locally where the data is held.

      The same protections are not afforded in this case. Google doesn't have a legally protected right to do what it is doing anywhere.

    15. Re: Applicable Outside Portugal? by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 1

      I'm from Portugal and the Court that made this decision is the small town Court from the slow and old ppl that guard the sheep. Kind of funny to think that town as the next overlord capital.

    16. Re: Applicable Outside Portugal? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      TFA claimed that court had authority all around the world.

      Of course they don't, but it's worth mocking.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. US Courts require US based companies to provide records to law enforcement, even if the records are outside the US; an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.

      That's a good point, but that's not so much because it requires an action to be done in that country, it's because that action potentially conflicts with the rights of the non-US people whose data is held in those records. There's no such conflict here.

      Also a good point, but if Google's T&C's allow them to do that then a court run the EU should not be able to overrule another country's contract law which would violate the rights of companies based there. Portugal's court also requires an action there for Google to not remove the app. I think Google is being shitty but extraterritoriality of a court order is a very slippery, and dangerous slope. Ultimately the ability to do that comes down to which country is more powerful.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    18. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.

      The only reason that has caused consternation is because handing over the data was deemed illegal locally where the data is held.

      But not in the location where the order would be entered, so they would be required to turn it over. That's why I think extraterritoriality is a bad thing absent treaties and agreements.

      The same protections are not afforded in this case. Google doesn't have a legally protected right to do what it is doing anywhere.

      That would depend win contract law and the T&C's both parties agreed to in the contract. Just because something its illegal in one country doesn't make it so in another, and for one court to order a company to take action outside the courts jurisdiction is a dangerous thing.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Via trade-agreements it can also apply in other places, since this is anti-competitive behavior by Google.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Google is SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google: STOP SHITTING THE BED! yes. I am yelling...

    1. Re:Google is SHIT by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Thing is, Android is Google's bed. You're in it because they let you.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Google is SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats is why i said BED.

    3. Re:Google is SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya this bed is starting to stink. I wanna get out. It was nice when it was all warm and slimy. But now its starting to crust up and stink. Disgisting...

  5. Don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who exactly installed aptoide on users phones? Users on they own will or what ?

    1. Re: Don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phones do not have preinstalled aptoide, from the manufacturer

  6. LOL, what I'd do is invert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always invert.

    OK, if a user has that app installed, inform the user that all apps downloaded from the Play Store will be removed in 48 hours as Android only supports one App store. Then nuke all the apps the users actually need. And they'll crawl back. They could say something that is real. That it's a security issue as all apps in the play store are scanned and Google will not allow third party apps from risking users privacy.

    1. Re: LOL, what I'd do is invert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So under your scenario, Google assumes liability for everything on the Play Store.

    2. Re:LOL, what I'd do is invert by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Always invert.

      OK, if a user has that app installed, inform the user that all apps downloaded from the Play Store will be removed in 48 hours as Android only supports one App store. Then nuke all the apps the users actually need. And they'll crawl back. They could say something that is real. That it's a security issue as all apps in the play store are scanned and Google will not allow third party apps from risking users privacy.

      So... Google should react to one court ruling they probably don't like by doing something that will spawn other courts ruling against Google? If Google throws a tantrum and removes apps from my phone that's in violation of a bunch of laws in any sane country. Google runs the Play Store, but that doesn't mean that they can do what they want.

  7. I feel like I'm missing something by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    There are numerous third party app stores, and I've never heard of Google forcibly removing any of them. I've bought quite a few phone from Amazon that include a discount in return for having the Amazon suite (including the Amazon app store) pre-installed, and none of them has had this problem.

    What is it about this specific app store that's making Google feel it has the right to forcibly remove it?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a minor one.

      Google's dipping their toe in the water to see how it goes over. If they get away with it, others will follow, until Apple-style there is only one allowed.

    2. Re: I feel like I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google bro, your tiki torch is showing.

    3. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I wondered if they snuck the installer into the Play Store somehow? The story lacks any meaningful details about the situation.

    4. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by kerashi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aptoide has long provided access to repositories of pirated apps, and has been less than willing to remove them at the request of app developers. Anyone can create a repository, load it with pirated apps, and publish it through Aptoide. That's probably what got Google to blacklist them.

      It's worth noting that Aptoide's own repository is clean, but with their linking to other repositories that they have zero control over, there's going to be plenty out there for Google to want to blacklist them for.

    5. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by kerashi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      F-Droid, which is a fork of Aptoide that uses a single repository instead of publishing other third-party repositories, is available on the Google Play Store, so I don't think Google has a problem with rival app stores. I'd bet money that Google's actions against Aptoide have more to do with the repositories of pirated apps that are published through Aptoide, since if you get a paid app for free through Aptoide, Google doesn't get their cut.

    6. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I have a feeling that this is close to the right answer.

      Reading more, including other stories and the Wikipedia article, apparently the removal is done by the security scan part of the Play Store which reports on installed apps that might be untrustworthy. Aptoide isn't curated (the default repos may be, but the entire concept is that you add repos for the software you want), I suspect that it's flagged for that reason, as a potential source of malware.

      My guess is that if Aptoide didn't allow user defined repos, it probably wouldn't be being targeted by Google, because then it'd be just another curated app store, like the Amazon one.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Yes. This was a probing action to determine the push back.

      The response should be severe, everyone that knew and didn't try to stop it should go to jail. And Google should be fines $1B.

    8. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by dissy · · Score: 1

      That's actually quite interesting to hear. When I first heard of Aptoide in passing, I was under the impression it was another store front akin to say Amazons or something.

      It didn't help that the guy talking about it pronounced the name as "App - Toy'ed" instead of the now-obvious "Apt - [dr]oid"

      Now knowing it is effectively an "apt-get" style system where you control the repo sources, I'm actually going to take a much closer look. So thank you for that!

    9. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by NextApp · · Score: 1

      F-Droid, which is a fork of Aptoide that uses a single repository instead of publishing other third-party repositories, is available on the Google Play Store, so I don't think Google has a problem with rival app stores. I'd bet money that Google's actions against Aptoide have more to do with the repositories of pirated apps that are published through Aptoide, since if you get a paid app for free through Aptoide, Google doesn't get their cut.

      F-Droid is not available on the Play Store. The Play Store policy prohibits distributing any kind of app store, even open source ones.

      Do not ever download anything called "F-Droid" from the Play Store. If you see it there, it's likely someone's lame attempt at malware.

      The real F-Droid is at https://f-droid.org/ (and is very much worth installing!)

    10. Re:I feel like I'm missing something by kerashi · · Score: 1

      Huh, I coulda sworn they were on the Play Store a few months back, linked from the official F-Droid website, when I installed F-Droid on my old tablet. Either it was removed, or my memory's not what it used to be.

    11. Re: I feel like I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, the CFAA provides severe financial and jail time penalties for accessing other peoples devices. The executives and implementers in this decision chain will be looking at millions of years in jail. This enforcement will provide a strong signal that justice and law apply equally to the rich as well as the poor.

      Right, right?
      Jk

  8. Kinda like microsoft? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I actually like having the phone OS tightly managed by the OS provider (not the phone maker). I like this lock down. I will gladly pay extra for it because for me the phone is my one immutable security tool where dependability out weighs the importance of customization. I have a desktop computer for customizaton

    But that's just me. I realize other's don't feel that way. Which is a good reason for their to be a competitive market with different approaches. I personally go with apple because if you look at history you know you are buying dependability and freedom from most hassles that arise from lack of full control. Sure apple makes their mistakes but let's not kid each other about which company is the one with the history of being pretty darn safe.

    Google at first went one way. More open than apple. Now they are slowly closing everything up. In someplaces like chromeOS they may have managed to actually lock it up so tight that it's the safest machine going--- but it's way way too far locked down-- those things blow for general purpose uses even though they are fantastic for the envelope of things they do do. (there's hop for the future with the VMs they are allowing!).

    But on android it's always been a sort of wild west of variable things. Now they are trying to close it up.

    Unfortunately in my opinion, the way they are closing android up shows they are more interested in the monopoly aspects of closure than the safety aspects of closure. In this respect it's almost of mirror of the things we really loath about microsofts early strategies. In this google is being more evil than good.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Kinda like microsoft? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      How secure is it really if you dont hold the keys yourself? Thats what makes desktop more secure, not its form factor.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re: Kinda like microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you pay attention to the Pokemon go hacking \ spoofing scene, it's always harder to spoof on Android than on idevices.

      Android is *more* secure

    3. Re:Kinda like microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your phone is secure ... like a prison. Apple's security exists to keep you from escaping. You are the product being sold. Make no mistake. Apple claims they don't sell your data. Google makes the same claim. Of course they wouldn't sell the data; they'd lose control of it. But they both sure as hell lease you for a pretty penny.

    4. Re:Kinda like microsoft? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Way more secure in practice. Especially if you are paying a company that makes it's money on selling security not advertising or monetizing my phone data

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re: Kinda like microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha your delusions are making me laugh (at you).

      You point to one example and ignore 40 years of experience with macs compared to Windows? Don't be silly.

    6. Re:Kinda like microsoft? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I don't know. There isn't much I do to make my phone secure on my own.

      Obviously there is stuff I don't do to make it less secure, but I wouldn't know how to build a more secure OS

  9. This is why I have that turned off by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    You can disable that. It's too bad, it would be a useful feature, but I always suspected that Google would abuse it and look, here we are. Don't be evil, Google.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:This is why I have that turned off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't have a problem with rival app stores; the F-Droid installer is distributed via Google Play, for example. There must be something about this particular store that Google feels puts users at significant risk.

    2. Re:This is why I have that turned off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't have a problem with rival app stores; the F-Droid installer is distributed via Google Play, for example.

      This is so very false. No alternative app store apps are available on the Google Play Store; it's against their terms.

  10. Windows 10 is up next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsofts Windows 10 does this too
    https://www.howtogeek.com/2435...

  11. Was this the same portugese judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That protected that pedo who murdered Jon Binay Ramsey?

  12. Correct Ruling by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This ruling is the correct one. Google always whines about lack of competition and net neutrality but the moment someone wants to compete with them, it is "Oh no. We cannot have that." Corporate hypocrisy at its very best.

  13. Remediation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't the judge ordered Google to remediate the situation by immediately showing all affected users another Google Play Protect popup, stating apologies for the falsehood and restoring Aptoide in full working order as it was before?

  14. Android is not open choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's face it Android might be built on open source but its certainly just as closed end with Google and its partners. Much of Android is either locked down by its smartphone manufacture or by Google with its Pixel line. Is there really much difference between a Android phone or a iPhone? Not really as much as some Android lovers claim. At least I know that every Apple device behaves the same and my experience with a couple Android phones was so not adhering to any standards really. The ecosystem is a mess, upgrade paths are hit or miss. No thanks.