Show more

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

@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.

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.

@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 .

was almost mentioned at : one key point was that mobile operating systems in 2008 were in a race to get developers. and were tiny newcomers with no developers. The idea from app stores came from free software and hackers. APT started in the 90s, was on iOS when was still saying web apps were the only way. And of course, used as a key strategy to get interested in their platform.

It is so disappointing to see @ubuntu reverting to #DarkPatterns and #Microsoft-style fear-mongering to increase sales.

The entire message is designed to make people believe that there are #security updates they're not getting without #UbuntuPro (which as far as I understand is not true). #DeceptiveDesign
CC @beuc @finnmyrstad

I love that Martijn Snoep, the Dutch regulator, used the term , that gives me hope that this regulation can be effective.

The have huge resources as compared to the regulators, so regulators must be strategic and pool resources. Also, communities based on tracking and reviewing the actions of the can also play a role here. know the APIs they have to work with, and can report fishy business. Bloggers can report on key technical details that steer things towards the . can show when things ate technically possible, despite what say.

Time to change my lingo, I've been saying . At the the talk is always about . It is a clearer analogy.

Gene Burrus again raises a key point. Platform companies change APIs frequently as a method to deliberately disadvantage other developers, forcing them to play catch up to have a good user experience.

Fully support the question from uptodown.com: file formats matter, App Bundles (AAB) vs APKs give a big wedge to disadvantage other app stores. is good at turning small technical improvements like that into tools to maintain their . There are other ways to solve the problem of smaller APKs. This one happens to preference Google Play, since control that format and require it. Plus they require developers give their private key to Google Play

Great point from Gene Burrus: 's was broken via regulation, and that meant that and were not charged a 30% fee as they worked to break into the market that had been dominated by . The DMA is building on that experience.

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