Comment by marcprux
14 days ago
Post author here. I've also been in various DMA enforcement workshops and consulted with EU regulators on the topic of app distribution. The "strictly necessary and proportionate measures to … not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system" defense comes up time and time again, and is clearly a primary talking point for those lobbying against effective enforcement.
From a developer's perspective, this stipulation is obviously intended to ensure that the existing on-device protections (sandboxing, entitlement enforcement, signature checks, etc) are not permitted to be circumvented by third-party app stores. But the anti-DMA brigades have twisted their interpretation to imply that that gatekeepers are permitted to ... keep on gatekeeping.
Apple still requires that all software be funneled through its app review (they call it "notarization", but it is the exact same thing as review: developer fees and T's&C's, arbitrary review delays, blocking apps based on policy, etc.) before it is signed, encrypted, and re-distributed to third party marketplaces like AltStore. And now Google is going to introduce its own new gatekeeping for all software on Android-certified devices, which covers 95%+ of all Android devices outside of China.
The lack of alarm has been, for me, quite alarming. Every piece of software installed on billions of mobile devices around the world is going to be gate-kept by two US companies headquartered 10 miles away from each other and with increasingly authoritarian-friendly leadership.
If you have an Android device, install F-Droid today and make it be known that you won't give up your right to free software without a fight.
Telling users that your platform will allow them to run any software they like so you can quickly gain market share, only to break your word after driving competing platforms out of the market is fraud.
I'm pretty sure fraudulent marketing is still illegal.
I agree. But I can hear the defense:
> Telling users that your platform will allow them to run any software they like
That is mere puffery, no reasonable person could belive it....
When Android was made available and marketed, they didn't even have an app store.
Back then, the claim was that Android was both open and open source.
1 reply →
What are your thoughts as obviously someone with deep knowledge of the ecosystems at play on the various parental control laws that are going into effect in the US?
The one in Utah that was already signed and the one in California plus the looming federal bill? The ones that make app stores verify kids' ages and request permission from parents?
How is F-Droid planning on tackling this?