zlacker

You have misunderstood the question, or perhaps buried the lede. 'Open in that regard' is tantamount to not open at all. If you gatekeep being able to load an app to an Android phone behind these processes, you're essentially stuck with no recourse if you, say, have a banned google account, or have some reason you don't wish to send your government ID to these companies.

>>vetrom+(OP)
I was responding to this:

> I'd bet money they'd just ban them; the whole point is to stop users running unapproved applications on their phones.

I wasn't trying to claim everything is hunky dory, just that they aren't "going to just ban" other app stores.

>>vetrom+(OP)
It also makes sure you only get one ID for life. There’s no creating a second account if you get banned because they’ll (likely at some point) collect biometric data as part of the verification process.

These big companies need to be broken into a thousand pieces. They’re starting to become the gatekeepers of participating in society.

>>donmcr+J6
Who's going to break them down? The governments also want this.

>>throw-+gb
Right, governments have found it very convenient to let Big Tech do most of the data collecting that would be politically problematic if they collected it themselves directly.

One doesn't have to be Einstein to realize why governments everywhere haven't cracked down on Big Tech's excesses/privacy breaches etc. ages ago.

You only have to look at the UK/Apple fiasco to see to see how desperate governments have become for user data. In this case the UK Govt. was so desperate for user data it overstepped the mark. (At least until now most other governments have been prepared to sit on the sidelines and just sap Big Tech for user info whenever they want it.)

>>Dangit+E1
If apps aren't allowed to run without a key signed by Google, that removes most of the utility of other app stores, does it not?