Google Can't Remove Third-Party App Store Aptoide From Users' Android Phones, Portuguese Courts Rule (prnewswire.com) 77
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.
WTH was google thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Google is Evil.
Apple is too.
It's time for more mobile device choices.
Re:WTH was google thinking? (Score:4, 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.
Kinda like microsoft? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Kinda like microsoft? (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
Re: (Score:3)
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 rewa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Expect Google to just start making their own phones here very quickly.
Google do make their own phones....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure it applies across Europe either for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Applicable Outside Portugal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Play itself is available in 145 countries [wikipedia.org], so if the injunction is only affecting 82 countries, that probably means some kind of treaty must be limiting its scope.
Re: (Score:1)
Brexit is sounding better and better.
Re: (Score:2)
You, for one, welcome our new Portuguese bendajo judge overlords!
Re: Applicable Outside Portugal? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA claimed that court had authority all around the world.
Of course they don't, but it's worth mocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Via trade-agreements it can also apply in other places, since this is anti-competitive behavior by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
You are reading a press release from Aptoide, not an opinion of the court.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, Android is Google's bed. You're in it because they let you.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I feel like I'm missing something (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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/ [f-droid.org] (and is very much worth installing!)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:I feel like I'm missing something (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
This is why I have that turned off (Score:3)
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.
Correct Ruling (Score:2)