That is insane. Straight up blacklisting popular software because they don't want people to look too closely at what they purchased. It's amazing what the public is willing to accept, just such a constant stream of reports about bad behavior from companies that most people can't find the energy to care.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
144 points (81.9% liked)
Android
17641 readers
191 users here now
The new home of /r/Android on Lemmy and the Fediverse!
Android news, reviews, tips, and discussions about rooting, tutorials, and apps.
🔗Universal Link: !android@lemdro.id
💡Content Philosophy:
Content which benefits the community (news, rumours, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules.
Support, technical, or app related questions belong in: !askandroid@lemdro.id
For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: !lemdroid@lemdro.id
📰Our communities below
Rules
-
Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.
-
No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to !askandroid@lemdro.id.
-
Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to !androidmemes@lemdro.id.
-
No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.
-
No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.
-
No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.
-
No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.
-
No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.
-
No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!
-
No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.
Quick Links
Our Communities
- !askandroid@lemdro.id
- !androidmemes@lemdro.id
- !techkit@lemdro.id
- !google@lemdro.id
- !nothing@lemdro.id
- !googlepixel@lemdro.id
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
- !sony@lemdro.id
- !samsung@lemdro.id
- !galaxywatch@lemdro.id
- !oneplus@lemdro.id
- !motorola@lemdro.id
- !meta@lemdro.id
- !apple@lemdro.id
- !microsoft@lemdro.id
- !chatgpt@lemdro.id
- !bing@lemdro.id
- !reddit@lemdro.id
Lemmy App List
Chat and More
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People straight up defend large corporations from criticism.
It was an android 14 compatibility issue and the app has since been updated and runs fine.
The app hasn't been updated but the Play Store block has indeed been lifted. People were sideloading without issue. Perhaps Google intended for the block to only last until launch to prevent reviewers only.
Android 14 uses new APIs and Google requires everyone to update their SDK to say whether or not it uses the new APIs. If they did nothing it was flagged as an incompatible app, but if they don't use the APIs it will run fine.
You can usually adjust your app and publish an update without needing to change the app's targetSdkVersion. Similarly, you should not need to use new APIs or change the app's compileSdkVersion, although this can depend on the way your app is built and the platform functionality it's using.
https://developer.android.com/about/versions/14/migration
You can update the SDK without triggering an update to the app and it will be available on the play store.
Occam's razor applies here.
Yes. I have a personal app that I made many years ago and used on my Pixel 4 and 6. It would not work on my 8 until I updated the sdk version and some of the tooling.
There is actual compatibility, and official compatibility.
The updated apps likely didn't have any code changed. (why they still worked when side loaded) Instead, the Play Store listing updated the compatibility filter to include Android 14, so 14 users could now see them in the Play Store.
It's not an uncommon practice. Many apps might simply have a compatibility filter like "yes if [OS version > X]". But that can be a problem if some future OS breaks compatibility. Especially in the case of a benchmark app that's supposed to give comparable results between OS versions. If the new OS tweaks something that doesn't fully break the benchmark, but causes inaccurate numbers, that would need to be checked before it gets approved.
I'm not seeing updated versions of the listings on my end (in terms of the last updated entry). Unless compatibility can be set separately?
Unless compatibility can be set separately?
I imagine it could. It would be strange need to upload a "new version" of the app, when nothing actually changed accept approving a new OS for that version. Then you need to track which version numbers are real changes, and which aren't. That would be weird.
Ah, so I fell for reactionary bs assuming that a fairly well written article had good information? Dammit. =P Thanks for the info, that sounds a lot more plausible to me.
At least you acknowledged it. The title of this post should have a misleading tag at best. There's no wonder that no other major outlets have reported on this.
Irresponsible reporting. The app couldn't be installed because the min API version of the app didn't meet the requirements for Android 14.
Google didn't "block" anything, this is fear mongering.
This article seems to be outdated as both apps are now visible in the Play Store and I had no problems downloading and running them. A comment suggests that it may be due to the previous minimum SDK target for the apps being too low. I'd be willing to chalk this up to being more innocuous than active malice on Google's part.
"Don't Be Evil" always sounded odd. As if that sort of thing needed to be said.
After 20+ years of consistent anti-consumer behaviour, Alphabet gets no benefit of the doubt.
When this first came out I checked on my Pixel 7 which is on A14 already and I didn't have the apps available either.
They are now available.
So yeah, it's almost certainly on the app developers who didn't target the new API version available, not Google. New Pixels launch with new versions of Android, but you can validate the same issue on older Pixels who have already upgraded to the new Android version.
It's even more odd they got rid of that saying in 2015 and replaced it with "Do the right thing". I'm not sure it was an improvement.
definitely not an 'improvement'...
the 'right' thing, according to who? why, the shareholders, of course.
Isn't this because the minimum SDK level increase requirement in the play store and android 14? This gets rid of older Lapis that are less efficient or secure from modern apps. The benchmarking tools haven't targeted newer APIs and are thus the ones at fault. Devs need to keep their stuff updated; that's half the point of the beta period every year for the major version releases.
People seem to be reporting that they were able to sideload without issue and the restriction was subsequently lifted from the Play Store.
That's not the point. Those restrictions applied to the SDK level, which is why these apps were not available on the play store. This is easily verifiable. It's incomprehensible how such a mind boggling dumb move would be intentional on Google's part.
Well, that's settled. Don't need a number anymore.
A phone number you mean?
Sounds a bit like a false narrative to be honest. Given how trivial it is to sideload, it doesn't make sense for Google to have thought disallowing installation from the Play Store would stop anyone from benchmarking. It seems implausible to me.
People in the business of reviewing Android phones couldn't possibly know about sideloading. I'm shocked anyone at Google thought this would do anything but make them look bad.
It would probably violate agreements and they'd blacklist the reviewers for future releases. It would also make those reviewers look bad if they don't respect review agreements and embargos. Other companies might not trust them with preview units.
I agree Google looks absurd here. But if my living was being made reviewing things, I wouldn't want to risk companies not giving me the early look that reviewers get. Especially when I can just wait till the device comes out and benchmark it then, since there's no longer an embargo or agreement once a device goes public
A reviewer who's being ethical would note any such demands from a manufacturer in their review, or refuse to review a product if the demands were too extreme. Banning benchmarks from reviews is pretty questionable, though not unprecedented. I should note that I am a reviewer, though not of phones and I don't make my living from it. I have encountered and rejected the occasional unethical request (usually manufacturers wanting to screen the review's content before publication).
Trying to keep people from benchmarking it via the Play Store is the absurd part. They can use a contract for reviewers, but that's not even going to slow down sophisticated end users.
I guess my Pixel 6 Pro better hold on for at least another generation. Those test results don't look good, especially on efficiency.
Terrible move, makes me not want to engage in the entire android ecosystem if they are going to pull this shit
Agreed, let's just move to checks notes iOS? Oh, they also constantly pull shady, anticonsumer bullshit. There's no winning for us.
Dumb phones are making a comeback.
they're smaller, more durable, and last considerably longer between charges. i never quit using them.
I miss the days when Google's corporate motto was don't be evil.
And if you think about it, it's not a high bar.
Only benchmark I look for is how well it runs genshin