"Select Play Partners" can block unofficial installation of their apps.

You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.

This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.

Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.

Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.

  • odelik@lemmy.todayEnglish
    2081·
    2 months ago

    This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.

    • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      881·
      2 months ago

      Also, didn’t the EU declare that Apple needs to allow other app stores on their devices?

      This seems like a bonehead move all around…

      • micka190@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        In this case, it seems like it’s the app makers themselves who are requiring the Play Store, though. Unless I’m misreading this, the developers are using the Integrity API to determine if the app was installed through “official channels” (in this case, the Play Store). Feels like people should be upset at the companies behind the apps, here.

        • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          2 months ago

          Okay. Then either use older backup versions of those apps before the requirement of the Play Store, or just quit using those apps and services and switch to less enshittified apps and services.

          Easier said than done these days, I know…

        • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          Yes, I know. The point is that people seeking privacy eventually won’t be able to use their banking apps and other online financial accounts unless they’re signed into Google Play to ‘authenticate’ the app.

          AKA force you into letting them steal more of your private info…

          • dan@upvote.auEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            I kinda understand it from the bank’s perspective… They need to reduce risk which is why a lot of banking apps check if the phone is rooted (if it’s rooted, how can you be sure that a malicious app with root access isn’t patching the app in memory and redirecting transfers to a different account?)

            Having said that, I really don’t think they need to restrict it such that the app can only be installed through the Play store, as long as the app is properly signed and uses certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              33·
              2 months ago

              Fidelity apps doesn’t require any of this shite?

              But some shiti cash-app does?

              I wonder why 🤔

    • philodendron@lemdro.idEnglish
      13·
      2 months ago

      I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1617·
      2 months ago

      This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        46·
        2 months ago

        Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          714·
          2 months ago

          For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn’t a priority.

          Just because it’s beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the origin.

          • Madis@lemm.eeEnglish
            191·
            2 months ago

            Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.