Slashdot Mirror
Google Can't Remove Third-Party App Store Aptoide From Users' Android Phones, Portuguese Courts Rule (prnewswire.com)
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.
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.
Portugal is an EU Member State. At the very least, it applies to any country that is a member of the European Union.
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
I'm not sure it applies across Europe either for that matter.
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
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.
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.
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.'"
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
You are reading a press release from Aptoide, not an opinion of the court.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.