Show more

@rene_mobile I understand why they were created, and I think the core idea is good. But the way it has been rolled out has been painful to a lot of developers, especially if the app isn't just doing a simple tie-in to a cloud service. My experience is that every other OS release introduced new and often conflicting APIs and requirements making it very difficult to make a UX that worked across the currently supported releases.

@spikebike @j2bryson @1br0wn That could play an role in the pricing, but I'm guessing it is a pretty small role. These exploits are generally sold priced per-target. The governments using them care about getting access to the target, not all the users of a platform.

That totally clicked for me, that's how I have been feeling about working with the Storage Access Framework APIs in Android. On top of that, Android APIs prefer cloud services. Guess what: services are built-in defaults for those APIs on all the Google devices.

Show thread

Wow so the #Apple lobbyist speaking at the @EU_Commission #DMAWorkshop on #AppStores refuses to answer my question why his company should get to decide what software runs on their devices -- after he spent 15min doing PR blah blah about how #iPhone is the best. 🤦

Congrats to co-founder @matthew for rocking the last , there was still quite a bit of buzz about how the live bridging demo carried a ton of weight, despite the lobbying efforts from , you can see it at around 14:00 in the live stream recording webcast.ec.europa.eu/dma-works

@j2bryson @1br0wn given that exploits are currently selling for more than exploits, I'd say that's one key piece of evidence pointing to Android as the more secure option zerodium.com/images/zerodium_p

@eighthave that sounds nicely put: Android used open source as a TOOL to get developers on board, and now that everyone is on board, is increasingly hostile to open source and has largely abandoned AOSP apps and functionality that they can replace with the Google Mobile Services "ecosystem". Additionally, SafetyNet (now Play Protect) lets developers "optionally" lock out people who exercise their right to modify free software (such as their OS)... and still actually run it.

Very exciting to hear the say it is clear that the are not the only ones who are providing secure and trustworthy app stores. I think that comment alone has made my trip worthwhile

Rupprect Podszun said it is clear after today that there will be changes to the fee structures of app stores. disagrees that there will be changes in the fee structure, and instead offers: "there will be more workshops". So is this a "kill the design by putting it to endless committee discussions"?

Interesting comparison between vs approaches at . They have very different methods of gatekeeping, and has been typically quite a lot more open . And Google has already added some improvements for other app stores. Google says, "hey, we're already trying to find ways to comply" while Apple seems to stick to its guns: "our way is the only way to trusted app stores."

The Open Web group is quite passionately advocating for putting web apps and on equal footing. While I do agree to some extent, I think there are key technical details that mean web apps will always be more dangerous for privacy and user control than native apps. Web apps are harder to review because their source can change per-user, per-visit, etc.

@webmink @ilumium I hope I did your question justice. Perhaps not surprising, but there was pretty much a non-answer from the panel.

App stores are certainly a lot more than just payment clearing services for selling apps.

I hope someone at the #DMAWorkshop today is going to bring up the issues I wrote about at @osi last August about making app stores #OpenSource friendly
blog.opensource.org/how-to-mak - right now they are talking about FRAND as the solution, which it definitely is not.

@webmink I haven't read the piece yet, do you have a question in mind?

@webmink @osi ask in the online chat, they've been taking a number of questions from there. Otherwise, I can give it a shot

@ilumium finally got in the discussion: is not the only one who can run an app store well. And they didn't even invent app stores, but instead, that came from distros at least a decade earlier.

's representative gave a classic, well polished FUD PR piece framed as lots of questions. Of course, I fully agree that human review of apps is key to trustworthy app stores, that's why goes the whole way and requires apps provide the whole source code to be review, not just the binaries. And F-Droid does done this since 2010 even though is not a . Being the only app store on the platform locks out app stores that do better review than .

Show more
image/svg+xml Librem Chat image/svg+xml