Is this google starting to test the waters when it comes to arbitrarily kicking out software they personally don't like? (open source, decentralized, privacy oriented etc.) I might of course be exaggerating a bit here, keep that in mind.
- Element and Matrix are growing but still not equipped to fight back at large against this, so it is unlikely to create too much negative press
- If Google starts to catch too much critique for this decision they can put it back and always blame $error
I believe Element will be back soon, the problem I see here is that it will be framed as an "honest mistake" and then become forgotten until they pull another stunt like this.
Even if these removals are temporary, they can still hurt growth. Let's assume a bit more malice: Couldn't Google just monitor and analyze metrics of an undesirable app (downloads, usage, hype), pick a critical point in its growth then "accidentaly" remove it for a few days, causing damage that isn't immediately apparent, but nonetheless long lasting?
>Is this google starting to test the waters when it comes to arbitrarily kicking out software they personally don't like? (open source, decentralized, privacy oriented etc.)
Absolutely. They've done similar things with similar apps. You just have to pay some attention to see the pattern.
Let's take video for example. They Kicked LBRY client off Play store not so long ago. (It eventually got reinstated.) They permanently banned BitChute app. Not app-related, but currently Rumble is suing Google for manipulating video search results in favor of YouTube. Look up the details, they are quite interesting.
Meanwhile, Google has an agreement with all Android hardware providers that forces them to pre-install YouTube and make it non-removable.
And then you occasionally see more subtle stuff like this:
"Since Android 8.0 Oreo, Google doesn't allow apps to run in the background anymore, requiring all apps which were previously keeping background connection to exclusively use its Firebase push messaging service."
how is this handled for SIP softphones that can run persistently in the background, in a direct SIP or SIP-over-TLS connection to a server? for instance:
that's just a random example I thought of since I use it, but I can also think of a lot of other Android apps that I'm fairly sure aren't using any client-server communications mediated through google firebase, yet they continue to function while backgrounded on android 10 and 11.
Just FYI, you can set those notifications to be ‘silent’ (not displayed on the top) and to collapse into a thin line each—in the system's notification settings. The apps still keep running, however I haven't figured out whether this change affects the frequency with which the background service is called by the system, and thus synchronization delays.
VoIP has always been treated a bit differently to regular apps on both platforms. I vaguely remember about 10 years ago both iOS and Android had special permissions specifically for VoIP apps to run in the background.
Android has it's own SIP stack. It's even exposed in the standard Android phone dialler from Google. In the settings for that app look under "calling accounts".
The Android SIP stack is pretty crummy. Last I tried to use it there was no support for TLS registration (leaving your calls unencrypted, barebacking the web) or for push notifications.
Linphone, Zoiper, etc can show a badge in your notifications menu/top bar at all times and get semi-reliable access to run in the background, but expect to miss 5% to 20% of all incoming calls. Firebase push notifications are mandatory if you care about battery life or reliable inbound calling :c
> leaving your calls unencrypted, barebacking the web
btw. most of the time only the session is unencrypted, not the media. when sip uses sips it will encrypt both the session and the media. but the latter is pretty uncommon and most often you wil see unencrypted session and an encrypted rtp stream. this is still the default, even deutsche telekom does it like that by default, even in their commerical offerings like "cloud pbx", because you would need to pay extra for the encrypted session.
and btw. sip over tls mostly means that the call is encrypted, but the sip messages aren't.
I think the situation is probably more interesting than deliberate anticompetitive evil. I bet that there was indeed some policy violation, and some minor bureaucrat is reasonably applying the policy, but in a way that misses the big-picture impact of doing so, for example threads of outrage high on Hacker News. The policies back them into being a monopolistic heavy whether they mean to or not, because they're so big that they basically have to rule the world and there's no mechanism for outsiders to have a say.
The real problem is that the policies are not adapting to rapidly changing conditions (i.e. yet another takedown, howls of outrage, calls for regulation), and the big tech companies have become too sclerotic to cope with that. Worse (for them), they're vulnerable to being gamed. Once people figure out that saying "Jehovah" triggers the policy, some will keep saying "Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah" just to fuck with them and grow the popular outrage.
> The policies back them into being a monopolistic heavy whether they mean to or not
That only happens because they deliberately put themselves in a position of market power. If they didn't have such crazy amounts of power nobody would care about their "policies" misfiring. None of this is accidental in the big picture, we're well past any window of plausible deniability with Google. They can't perpetually claim incompetence.
I'm not sure what the complaint is there. They grew their business, which is what every business tries to do, nothing unique to Google about that. The interesting question is are they finally becoming a victim of their success. It seems obvious to me that the big tech companies have grown past the size where public interest / public square questions start to kick in, which is why the "it's a private company, they can do what they want on their own platform, no free speech issues to see here" argument is so weak. It's also not at all in the long-term political interests of the people who've recently adopted it as a mantra, just for a temporary advantage over their adversaries. Not smart, guys.
The complaint is, we don't need to allow big tech so much power. Utilities are heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic abuse. Big tech is showing similar "natural monopoly" tendencies and so needs to be reigned in with regulation because free markets are failing here.
I don't think this is the case. But in my opinion, the fact that we have no way of knowing and have to rely on Google not to do that is the real issue.
Say you demonstrate it in a fullproof way, what are you seeking damages for? A store kicking your product out according to the agreement?
I.e. the thing you need to show in court isnt that Google stopped selling your app in its store because it didn't like it rather that it's a monopolistic marketplace or the terms are somehow invalid or so on. These are much higher bars, especially with 3rd party stores and side loading being available and used on the platform. It's considered a battle to prove these things in the Apple ecosystem I can't imagine trying to prove them in Play first.
Yes, I'm convinced the YouTube algos did this to my channel during summer 2020. Their algos wait in silence until triggered.
Big tech platform who participate in anti-competitive practices (Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook) know the optimal time to pull the plug to flatten the curve and prevent competition from going exponential.
- Element and Matrix are growing but still not equipped to fight back at large against this, so it is unlikely to create too much negative press
- If Google starts to catch too much critique for this decision they can put it back and always blame $error
I believe Element will be back soon, the problem I see here is that it will be framed as an "honest mistake" and then become forgotten until they pull another stunt like this.
Even if these removals are temporary, they can still hurt growth. Let's assume a bit more malice: Couldn't Google just monitor and analyze metrics of an undesirable app (downloads, usage, hype), pick a critical point in its growth then "accidentaly" remove it for a few days, causing damage that isn't immediately apparent, but nonetheless long lasting?