After Facebook was found to be updating its Android app without using the Google Play store's update mechanisms, Google has clarified its terms and conditions to ensure no other developers attempt to circumvent its store. While Google has always outlawed "applications that cause users to unknowingly download or install applications from sources outside of Google Play," it's added a new sentence to its "Dangerous Products" section:
"An app downloaded from Google Play may not modify, replace or update its own APK binary code using any method other than Google Play's update mechanism."
Google's new phrasing leaves little room for interpretation. Facebook's justification for its update policy was that it was only pushing the updates to users that allowed non-Play store downloads to their phones, and it was informing them that the update was available. That worked under the old terms and conditions, but it's clear that Facebook will now have to stop its experiment of pushing new features to users that allow installations from unknown sources.
Thanks, Mad_Tom!
Comments
By NdigoBoy on 04.26.13 4:15am
Haha I loved the subtitle “Google reminds Facebook who’s in charge”. This is so true.
By quadrige on 04.26.13 4:20am
That was the best part.
By NdigoBoy on 04.26.13 4:22am
Alternate subhead: “Google bitch-slaps Facebook”.
By mistalee3 on 04.26.13 5:26am
The non-Play store update notification that users couldn’t turn off was a slimy thing to do by Facebook developers. It didn’t technically violate Google’s TOS at the time, but it was janky/sketchy/douchey/etc. This was needed in Google’s TOS for the Play store.
Facebook is kind of like Pepsi in that way. Pepsi was always the rebellious cola from a product positioning standpoint.
By Rufus M on 04.26.13 8:55am
I heard Pepsi mellowed out though once it left its teen years. : )
By bangishotyou on 04.26.13 9:50am
Nice! The Coke/Pepsi Wars is a very interesting one.
This link has a great overview of Coke vs Pepsi:
http://www.businessinsider.com/soda-wars-coca-cola-pepsi-history-infographic-2011-11?op=1
Others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Pepsi
By Rufus M on 04.26.13 10:25am
Nice. Totally have nothing to do at work and have been trying to find stuff to waste time reading. Kept drawing a blank. Will definitely check out those links.
I totally remember Crystal Pepsi as a kid. My dad was a trucker and when he found it in Dallas he bought a ton just to bring home for everyone to try out when it was first introduced.
By bangishotyou on 04.26.13 11:13am
I agree. I guess we should all be glad that it was facebook that took advantage of this and not some malware producer. Download an app then get prompted to download the malware ridden version as an “update”.
By Sk0ly on 04.26.13 12:09pm
People are actually using Facebook home?
By XavierMathews on 04.26.13 9:01am
So now the Dropbox beta update feature is against the terms? Just what everyone wanted, more Play Store entries. Hooray.
By ArtnerC on 04.26.13 4:15am
What’s wrong with just having a second Dropbox Beta app like Chrome and a number of other apps have?
By Sir_Brizz on 04.26.13 4:20am
if the beta has been downloaded friom the Play store, subsequent betas can be downloaded from the Play Store
If the beta has been downloaded from Dropbox site, it can be updated outside the Play Store
By Oletros on 04.26.13 4:29am
The stable Dropbox app from the Play store directly downloads the beta APK from elsewhere and updates the Play store version. The same thing goes for Nova Launcher.
By KurianOfBorg on 04.26.13 5:33am
By cmasontaylor on 04.26.13 6:12am
That sounds like it installing a whole new apk in addition to the play store apk which is not updated. Not sure that would be a violation.
By Droosh on 04.26.13 8:14am
It is. Simply put: a Play Store app is not allowed to download a APK, it’s own or otherwise, and prompt the user to install it.
It’s why you don’t see other app stores in the Play Store, including something like Humble Bundle, which doesn’t actually compete with Play Store at all since it’s not even a store, but just an app installer.
By mldi on 04.26.13 9:59am
Important to note: Facebook could self-distribute that app from Facebook’s website and circumvent Google Play’s requirements.
Or Facebook could see this as Amazon did and make a “Facebook Appstore”. But with their ailing games and apps segment, that could be silly at this point. (Two years ago, it would have mattered.)
By About2BBanned on 04.26.13 6:10pm
That method is actually used by a lot of apps. I do believe that you have to actively turn on notifications for beta updates on most apps. And most of them don’t update the apk right away but send you to a page in your browser where you can download the beta version. At that point you should know what you are doing and you are in no way forced into it. Facebook kept nagging until you installed the update, with no way to switch off the notification.
By BrightSilence on 04.26.13 4:30am
The only apps that update themselves on my phone and tablet apart from Facebook were apps I had downloaded and installed myself outside of the Play Store, such as Swype, WhatsApp beta, Sopcast and Firefox Aurora. Facebook was the first I’d seen an app from the store do this.
By Bosambo on 04.26.13 5:22am
One example I use a lot is beyondpod. In the settings you can tell it to notify you of beta updates. You get a notification within the app (so no OS notification) that links you to a page where you can download the beta apk. The apk will then update the existing app. Depending on how you interpret the terms this is still allowed or no longer allowed. I’m guessing this shouldn’t be an issue.
By BrightSilence on 04.26.13 6:19am
If it makes you downloading a separate apk, that’s allowed.
If it modifies the original apk, downloaded from the Play Store, that’s not allowed.
The point of this change is precisely to avoid “interpretations” of the terms.
By PhilNelwyn on 04.26.13 7:20am
This^^
If it deletes (replaces), or updates the original play store apk then they are in clear violation. If it installs a completely separate apk and doesn’t touch the original, then no violation.
I suppose that they may try to pull something and have the new apk try to delete or suggest removing the play store apk when it is first run. There are slippery devs like Facebook out there after all.
By Droosh on 04.26.13 8:20am
You can have a Play Store app that does not appear in search results (like Chrome Beta).
Banning out of the store updates is pretty logical. Sooner or later someone would have used it to install a first harmless app from the Store and then download a new version with dozen of new nasty authorizations.
By Teovald on 04.26.13 7:05am
Doesn’t actually create more play store entries. It will be like the Nova Launcher Beta channel. It is there but does not show up in search on the play store. Only when you select beta channel from within the app does it connect you to the play store to download.
By Sk0ly on 04.26.13 12:11pm