• LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They’re not purchases, they’re leases.

    Edit: it’s actually that you purchase access to their license of the media.

      • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Edit: Sorry, meant to reply to the comment above you!

        They’re not really leases either. Leases last for a defined period of time, like “one year,” or they renew at regular intervals, like “monthly.” “Pay up front and we’ll let you keep this license for either forever or until we decide to revoke it without notifying you” isn’t the same thing.

      • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apple uses the word “Get” for free things and simply displays the price on the button of paid apps. No mention of the nature of the transaction. That’s in the Germa of agreement you “read” and agreed to.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Pretty much all the big tech firms have done this. The problem is we only blame the middlemen. We blame Sony or Amazon, or Google or whoever. But the companies providing the licenses for them to “sell” are a big part of the problem. And nobody ever wants to listen when I say this but they should be on the hook too. Like, I appreciate that it’s messed up to have your purchased media shadow ganked. But at the same time it’s fucked up to have the licensing agreements be what they are to start with and that’s absolutely on companies that own the rights to digital media. Who continue to lobby to maintain the status quo.

    • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      And this is why you don’t see apps selling for a price but rather being used to syphon users into subscriptions.

    • snaggen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are they really? Didn’t you press a button that said “Buy”? Just because they want things to be something else, doesn’t mean that the meaning of the words changed.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No they fucking can’t argue that! Words have meanings and Google is not entitled to change them.

            • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There are usually loads of unenforceable terms and definitions in the ToS you sign. Just because you sign it doesn’t make it true or enforceable, and many won’t hold up in court even if you’ve signed the document. But that requires you to spend the energy and money to fight these fuckers.

            • essteeyou@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If a car dealership put a sticker on the front window of a car saying “Buy this car for $250 a month for 4 years” and then took the car from you after 4 years because their terms had some fine print, the dealership would likely be sued.

              If they weren’t sued they’d at least lose business. Unfortunately for everyone, that’s not going to happen with Amazon or Sony or any other big company doing this shit because we’re just letting them get away with shady business practices.

              I’m not saying the terms are wrong or that what the companies are doing is illegal right now, but I do think it should be looked at closely by someone who can dish out some massive fines, or ideally change the situation.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Maybe that’s true in a legal sense, depending on the jurisdiction, but in a moral sense, it’s only true if you read and understood what you were agreeing to. You can’t consent to something you were tricked into.

          • danielfgom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Exactly. It should say “lease” instead of “buy” or just “price” .

            They know that too but you know why they don’t use “lease”? They would have WAY less sales. Almost no one would click that.

            So they use “buy”/“price” to make you think you own it, and then think they are clever when they define it as “buying a licence” in the Terms.

            That’s plain and sneaky so I don’t feel sorry for them when people pirate stuff.

            I wish every dev had the option of “go to my website and buy this from me with an eternal licence included” as well as the option to lease it from the Play Store.

            Same goes for music and movies.

            • essteeyou@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wish the terms and conditions had reading times at the top of them, and I also wish there was a law saying something to the effect of “buying a movie shouldn’t require you to read 35 minutes of ALL CAPS TERMS AND CONDITIONS while holding a dictionary and a thesaurus after gaining a legal degree”

      • Patch@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve just had a look on the Play Store, and they notably don’t use the word “buy” anywhere that I can see. The button to “buy” the app is just a button with the price on it, and clicking through that it uses the language of “install”.

        Can’t help but think that that’s deliberate.

        • f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It does say “Buy” and refers to a “purchase”, but everyone’s arguing semantics; the Terms of Service say that you are buying a limited license to download and use the software. You may have a “one-click purchase”-type option enabled?

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also a private company and they can do whatever they want on their platform and their property.

      It’s like renting space in an apartment … don’t be surprised if the landlord decides to change the agreements and do things you don’t like. You’re renting things, you don’t own anything.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t arbitrarily change agreements for renting without consent or lease renewal. At least not in civilized countries.

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not defending or condoning it … I was just pointing out something for what it is. I keep my purchases, rentals and anything paid for to a minimum with services like Google, Amazon or any other cloud or electronic service. They are not purchases of ownership, they are marketed as things that we buy and own indefinitely but in legal terms, they are more or less indeterminate rentals or leases from the company with terms that can be set by the company that controls them.

          I agree, in terms of comparing to an apartment rental, there are more laws because the thing that is involved severely affects a person’s life because we’re talking about a roof over a person’s head.

          But in terms of electronic or digital items or services that only exist online, it’s a lot easier to remove / change / delete them because these actions won’t put you out on the street, make you starve or physically hurt you in any way. We lose the convenience and we lose out on something.

          I’m not belittling any of it, I wouldn’t want to lose anything I paid for either but at the same time, we have to understand that when we sign up to pay for something with a multi billion dollar corporation, we hardly have any rights to anything, agreed to or implied … and if we argue that in court, the one with the most money wins.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your argument is cargo-cult libertarian bullshit. There are lots of things private entities can’t do on “their property!” Murdering visitors, for example. Fraudulently claiming a sale isn’t really a sale is right up there with that in terms of how clear-cut the rule is.

        What we have here is squarely a failure of the FTC to do its goddamn job. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • laverabe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think everyone took there comment in the wrong light. They’re not defending Google, but rather pointing out that this behavior should be expected from a for profit company, and thus people should have avoided the situation in the first place. Not that it should be that way, but we live under capitalism unfortunately, and people need to be way more skeptical of these companies.

          Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead? Companies will never stop abusing ‘e-goods’ , it’s just not going to happen. People should just get beyond ownership and embrace the advantages of free software.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead?

            Because boycotts don’t fucking work and are not a replacement for meaningful consumer protection law!

            I do use F-Droid myself, thankyouverymuch, but I’m not so naive as to think it’s an actual solution instead of a workaround. Even if it’s technically possible to continuously defend yourself from the avalanche of corporate abuse, it’s fucking exhausting. The masses not only aren’t capable of it, but shouldn’t have to be in the first place because abuse should be prevented, not worked around. That’s what government is for!

            This shit about boycotting abusive companies instead of actually regulating them is just as brain-dead as arguing that we shouldn’t have police because we can just hire a personal security detail to follow us around instead.

            Companies will never stop abusing ‘e-goods’ , it’s just not going to happen.

            Not with that attitude. Companies could certainly be forced by the government to stop doing that, but apologists like you are letting government off the hook.

            • laverabe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well I personally think the FTC should do more, but until money out of politics, it will never happen. And pending some mass upheaval; that is probably in all reality unlikely as long as people are fed, money will almost certainly never be out of politics.

              So all the more necessity to encourage people to just abandon these profiteering companies.

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does that single landlord control every apartment in the country? That is Google’s level of monopoly.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    168
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because you signed (digitally) an agreement that lets them do that.

    Pirate everything.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you have an Android, they are increasingly making it impossible to not use them. They continue to punish users that choose to unlock the bootloader or root, and Google Play Services are an inescapable prerequisite to many apps, regardless of side loading ability.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “the boot loader is only safe if it is signed by Google”

          How ever did I get out of the '80s with computers with dangerous unsigned boot loaders

        • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve used F-Droid without unlocking the bootloader or rooting or Google Play services integration. Developers are free to use F-Droid, most just choose not to. Hopefully it becomes even more popular as gplay has more issues.

      • firecat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t buy games on Steam or Valve Corporation, they make you sign the User Agreement that legally waves your rights and ownership of games.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually, Steam is usually one of the best places when it comes to refunds. The process is simple, and they’re willing to make exceptions to the rules. And the company is run by one of the few CEOs in the gaming industry who seem to actually understand gaming.

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            And a large portion of the steam community will be super sad if Gaben retires or passes away. We can only hope it continues to be run as well as it has been over the past 15 years.

          • firecat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            AU lawsuit against Valve proves Valve didn’t want to refund their customers. Valve is guilty of this violation of Australia law. Many people who used Steam before 2010 tell people they were never given refunds oran option for refunds.

            Valve is not good guys, they fought the Australia government to the very top to not pay or offer refunds. They are greedy.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They literally had to be sued by multiple jurisdictions to even offer refunds. The cult of Valve needs to die.

    • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Read by almost no one, it is interesting because in many countries contracts are considered invalid if one of the parties is not properly informed and still accepts, affirmative consent is legally crucial.
      Everyone knows that EULAs violate it systematically, tens or hundreds of millions a day, but it doesn’t seem to be a matter of interest.

      • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whenever I see a checkbox or something that just says “Check here to confirm you accept our privacy policy” I think it’s funny because all I am legally agreeing to are the words actually in front of me. Sure, I agree with the standalone words “our privacy policy”. I’m not sure what that does for you, but i guess “our privacy policy” is an acceptable string of words.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Imagine how hard it would be to buy stuff or use free services if you actually had to read and understand the contracts every time.

        Ok, I’ll just quickly check on Google maps what’s south of Mongolia. Oh, I need to read all that before seeing the map? Well, maybe later. Don’t really have the time for that right now.

        If that’s what life was like, laziness would win nearly every time and companies would have hardly any users or customers. Eventually some companies would probably make super short contracts in order to lower the threshold.

        • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can already see it: “We’ll do whatever we want without accepting any responsibility and we’ll spy on you to monetize it. Click here to accept.”

          It’s a complicated issue, maybe with summaries, requiring affirmative consent only for certain actions, or splitting them up? I don’t know, it all seems messy. But I hope it leaves behind the expectation that we lie by agreeing to sell your firstborn’s soul after reading for hours in legalese.

          #SellYourChildrenWithAffirmativeConsent.

          • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            LOL, that was a brilliant summary about what these contracts usually boil down to. However, they should probably include these things too: “You’re not allowed to do anything cool. If anything goes wrong, it’s always your fault.”

            These brutally honest super short contracts could be fun to read.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        But we never owned a copy of any software or movie ever. We always had a license to watch or use the copy we purchased.

        • Lord_ToRA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why does that matter to my point?

          “But we’ve always been enslaved. We’ve never had rights as individuals in the first place.” Is not an argument against change.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is rage inducing.

    Imagine if your car dealer was allowed to confiscate your car on a dubious claim such as “it doesn’t meet the latest emissions standards,” but not even telling you that.

    Google needs to be fined twice the value of the apps that it stole from it’s paying customers.

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is so stupid. Why would a company put this much effort to lock down the seat controls, as if they didn’t already exist without limits on every other car? Not even with a toggle? These companies are really trying to destroy the “cars = freedom” association.

          • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the motors need to cool down, they need to rethink their motors.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Motors get hot and it’s quite reasonable to not include tons of cooling just so that you can adjust your seat for hours on end.

              That said the implementation is still stupid as time isn’t the right measure to judge motor temperature, motor temperature is. Thermocouples cost fractions of a cent, the motors probably already include one or two as they already have smarts (being hooked up to the CAN bus and not straight voltage). Which would also take care of differing environmental temperatures as obviously the motors are worse at shedding heat when it’s scorching hot in the car.

              • piecat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t add cooling, you size the motors to have enough thermal mass and mount them to metal chassis.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Potatoe Potatoh. Point is you size the overall system for quick adjustments, not continuous use. If you can get by with less weight and cost then you do as continuous use does not even begin to appear in the requirements sheet.

            • psud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Rethink a motor designed to be used for 5 mins initially then occasionally in future? It’s fine for the design purpose. It’s even fine for the mode where it operates every time you get in the car (where it waits in fully back position, and moves forward when you operate a control)

              Why should they think it to let it be used as a fidget toy?

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the most important parts of purchasing a car is the title being signed over and that transfer being registered with the state. You never own the title to an app.

      • Klear@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t transfer title and register a hammer when you buy it. Are you saying you fan’t own one?

  • Coach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because they have more money than you and, according to the US legal system, that’s all that matters.

    • woodgen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Piracy is never stealing, since you are not removing anything from anyone. This does not include actual piracy, the one with ships and rum.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s true. If I steal 20 copies of some avengers movie from Walmart and give them away on the street, I’ll pay a couple thousand dollars in fines, tops. If I’m caught seeding an avengers movie to one person downloading from me in Serbia, I’ll be fined more money than most people make in their entire lives

    • Ad4mWayn3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Partially agree, because if purchasing == owning (which it should), then piracy is still != stealing

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok but this isn’t purchasing outright it is basically leasing. It says so in the tos. The issue here is ppl don’t read tos or they don’t care and pay anyway. Ppl like that have zero right to complain.

      Lol everyone of you idiots are proving my point and making tons of idiotic assumptions like I’m anti piracy. Y’all need some logic lessons.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amazing how you can talk so coherently with that corporate dick taking up so much space in your mouth.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        How dare the average person not have the time or attention span to read a 28 page document in legalese that explains what exactly they’re doing

        It’s not like purposefully dense and overlong TOS is a known strategy to hide bullshit that later gets thrown out in court or anything

        • Urist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          That person probably also think people who get shot are stupid for not moving out of the bullet’s path. “It is not so hard, it moves in a straight line you idiots”.

        • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you don’t have time for that? Spend two hours reading stipulations for a service that you might use for a decade or longer? That you might spend thousands of your currency on? What happened to the world. So fast. So furious.

      • d3lta19@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        The button to install a paid app literally says BUY. If that doesn’t mean purchase I don’t what else it could mean.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can buy a vacation doesn’t mean I own the place I’m going.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            From Wiktionary:

            buy (third-person singular simple present “buys,” present participle “buying,” simple past “bought,” past participle “bought” or (archaic, rare, dialectal) “boughten”)

            (transitive, ditransitive) To obtain (something) in exchange for money or goods.

            “I’m going to buy my father something nice for his birthday.”

            When I search the Play Store for Geometry Dash, and click the lil button that says “$1.99,” I get this page. It sure as shit looks like what I’m about to buy is Geometry Dash, the video game. When I click “Buy,” I’m not at all expecting to “buy” a temporary, permanently revokable license to play the game for now. I’m expecting to own the 1s and 0s that are downloaded to my device. Hiding legalese in the T&C that nobody clicks saying “actually buy means lease” is legal, and it should not be legal, because it’s misleading as hell. They should not be allowed to redefine widely understood words in T&C in a way that misleads consumers into paying for something they didn’t expect to be paying for.

      • experbia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK but piracy isn’t stealing it is basically a harmless free copy. The issue here is corporations want to have their cake and eat it too, but to prohibit us all from either having or eating any cake ever. Corpos like that have zero right to my consideration or care.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, okay, except the iTunes and Facebook TOSes are longer than King Lear. Eventually a judge nullified a TOS on the basis that no-one ever reads those anyway.

        Thanks to odious TOSes, the average American commits three felonies a day, violations of the CFAA for which some whistle-blowers and journalists are serving sentences similar to [assassin] Scott Roeder (for the murder of Dr. George Tiller). The rest of us are not serving such sentences but for one officer or official who wants us to disappear.

        In the meantime journalists continue to get charged with such violations, usually when their investigating something embarrassing to current administrations. The EFF has repeatedly raised a stink about this, but hasn’t yet been able to change the law.

        If your kid is under 13 and has social media accounts on specifically kid-friendly platforms (that, themselves teem with predators, salesfolk and law enforcement) then your kid is committing major federal crimes. On the light side, they totally have haxxor cred.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You 👏 should ,👏 expect 👏 this 👏 it 👏isn’t👏the👏first👏time

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I recall a while back someone did a study that there are not enough hours in the day for an average person to actually read all the TOS documents they’re expected to agree to. The idea that people can or should be responsible for knowing what’s in a TOS is a legal fiction.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe we should get a GPT started to make short and understandable TOS.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I never said or implied what you assume I’m implying.

          Get some literacy.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some people don’t get how you can separate understanding the logic of something and not supporting it at the same time.

        Don’t worry, that is normal. Im getting laughed at left and right for having my own root-server with all my services running on it, all FOSS.

        Most of them were born with google already existing, it is part of nature. They haven’t seen a giant go down yet.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, as somebody who really loved the early era of Android gaming, I’m really disappointed how ephemeral it all was between the Play Store delistings and the absolutely atrocious approach to backwards compatibility in the Android OS.

    • aluminium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep I found out myself pretty quickly. With a simple App which was maybe 10K lines of code I started targeting Android 10 and so far every new major version caused some issue with the code as Google constantly messes around with files, permissions, …

      I can’t imagine what a task it is to maintain a game.

      • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I just wish Google would release some kind of 32-bit Android 4.4 sandboxed compatibility layer for old games. Android 4.4 was the standard Android version for a super long time for a zillion devices, and I’d bet 99% of the dead .APK games out there would run on that version.

        Give me a tool with a crapload of slow, clumsy emulation wrappers covered in tedious config options and a launcher any time I want to run an app through this compatibility layer and let me play Amazing Alex again.

        edit: it occurs to me I basically want an Android emulator for Android. Or like, a psuedo-emulator that’s not really an emulator like WINE/Proton.

          • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ahh, you know, it’s about the convenience of not having to juggle another device. I still have an old Galaxy Tab kicking around the house that plays all that stuff pretty well, but it’s not the same as being able to pull it out of my pocket on the bus.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ya know, I actually had the idea a while back to run an android emulator on one of my servers and then setup remote access to it with some software that hopefully had an android client app.

              The idea being I would use the android remote client on my actual phone to use a “phone in the cloud”, ofc my original intentions for it wouldn’t have been affected too terribly by things like latency, but for games it may or may not work all that well (I never really got past the sketch out phase lol)

              • pirat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why not try emulating it locally on your phone instead of a remote server, to eliminate the latency? Was it not possible at the time you got the idea?

                • cm0002@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I thought about it, but the pros didn’t outweigh the cons for me. The biggest con being limited resources on a phone and a remote server would have relatively endless resources, and my use case could handle a little latency so the biggest pro wasn’t so big

    • atocci@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, I can’t run a 32 bit game on a 64 bit processor? How is that even a problem on newer phones?

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, I never bought a game again after my CAVE shmups all stopped working when I switched phones, there’s also no way to try and make it work on your phone unlike any other operating system on PC since it’s so locked down, completely dependent on devs to care.

      • corship@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if I use your toothbrush to clean my asshole it’s fine cuz it’s still there right?

        • Maolmi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          55
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you can exactly copy said toothbrush and then clean your filthy bunghole with the copy it is totally fine, yeah.

          • IHateFacelessPorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But the thing they are selling to you is not only the data. Also the right to use it. When a studio makes a game spending millions of dollars they don’t do it so one can buy it for 60$ and others can copy from him/her eh? Try moralizing it as much as you want. (If your being sarcastic sorry about that but doesn’t look like it) Privacy Piracy is stealing, and I am accepting I am stealing. No need to think otherwise.

            • lorkano@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sharing pirated content to millions of people is stealing, I agree. But it started differently. You bought the CD and you could lend it to friend, your game worked. Right now you buy games and only you can play it. Which is different with any other form of physical good. I buy a car I can let someone drive it for a day. Why shouldn’t this apply to digital goods as well? That’s how piracy started, because we couldn’t share our goods with friends anymore. Digital companies decided it’s loss for them.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Also, it’s legal to make a backup copy of something you own for personal use. And yet we can’t make backup copies of games even for personal use. I guess we don’t own them.

              • IHateFacelessPorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right now you buy games and only you can play it. Which is different with any other form of physical good. I buy a car I can let someone drive it for a day. Why shouldn’t this apply to digital goods as well?

                Yeah absolutely. Which is something I am completely agreeing of. But the thing is that doesn’t give us the right to steal it or make ourselves think it is not stealing. What I am doing is not buying such companies’ products + pirating if I really need it. But I don’t try to make it seem like how it is not (e.g. as it is not stealing).

                That’s how piracy started, because we couldn’t share our goods with friends anymore. Digital companies decided it’s loss for them.

                I am pretty sure when Napster was a thing music CDs were still a thing as they are now too.

              • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I don’t know about you guys, but I share my digital games all the time. Steam and Switch have pretty decent share setups.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Technically you don’t get the copy rights to a book when you buy it either, but you do get that one copy of the book and publishers can’t knock on your door demanding it back. You can even lend it or resell it.

              However as far as respecting the customers rights, game and digital media companies want to set their own terms.

              Is it Piracy to restore access to something you bought and got taken away from you? Well, if it is, I’m pro piracy.

        • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure. I can even spit extra on it no charge if that makes your day. Just download me a clean one afterwards will you.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, because you’re still tampering with the original product. That is not analogous to piracy. If you make a perfect 1:1 replica of my toothbrush, and use that to pleasure yourself, I don’t care, because my toothbrush is still in my bathroom untouched.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Piracy is always justified. I don’t do it because I’m afraid of consequences and my fear of fucking up is greater than my desire to watch TV, but if you’re confident in your abilities, do it. Fuck Netflix, they wouldn’t use your money to make shows you like anyway.

    • Ad4mWayn3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      's alright sweetheart, you can say it, there’s no longer a megacorporation to shadow ban or lecture you

  • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not only that. If you buy an app, you are at the mercy of its creator. If they decide they want to fill it with ads and tracking, or switch to a subscription model, there’s nothing you can do. You can’t rollback updates, you can’t install an older version from the play store. If they decide to remove it from the store, you won’t be able to install it any more.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I had one of the flight tracker apps, used it to identify planes passing my work lunch room’s window, and paid $5 for it to get it ad free. Then it went to subscription and made it’s free tier time limited instead of ad supported, so now I don’t use it. I can’t use an old version as it doesn’t work on newer versions of Android

      Edit to add: It’s worth learning how to side load apps. While on a driving holiday in Sicily I was told that it was vital to have the ZTL app so I could know what areas were closed to cars (zero traffic limit), but it was only available on the Italian play store, so I had to download the APK and install it that way

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Zona a Traffico Limitato - buy I like the way you made the acronym work in english :)

        Edit: Limited traffic area, typically only residents, emergency services, deliveries etc.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s it. I was allowed to drive into one as I was booked into a hotel in the zone, I think that’s the slowest I ever drove for more than three metres

    • Piwix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      On that note, I bought a GIF viewer app’s full version via in-app purchase and about a year later, they updated the app to have ads again regardless and my “full version no ads” app got ads again and now i had to buy a subscription per month to be “ad free” needless to say I uninstalled

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I got into technology because I loved it. Now, ever bit of news I get I hate it a little bit more. What happened with improving things, sharing information and making the world better?

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The “best” thing is when someone makes legitimately the best application for its purpose (arguably the only good application for it), so you convince your friends to use it because it’s so useful, and then they cram it full of ads and bloat and make it borderline unusable, but your friends won’t switch to a different app (or even leave the app altogether) because it’s the only way they know how to do the thing

      I’m talking about the 5e Companion app on Android. Anyone know any good alternatives? It used to be so good, but then they started adding Unearthed Arcana garbage to it, which almost entirely sucks ass, and when UA gets officially added, they have to add the official version separately because some people have already used the UA version to make characters. I want so badly to switch away from it, but I can’t find any good free alternatives that have all of the content from 5e.

      I wish 5e.tools had a character sheet builder

        • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s why Android apps must be signed. Tools can show an app’s certificate hash and if two app versions’ hashes match, they’re equally trustworthy / from the same source. I think APKMirror does this and it’s actually quite trusthworthy.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are usually archives of versions for most apks for android. App updated to be shittier? Uninstall and install an older version of it from IA.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    A “purchase” or “buy” option, especially when you get an invoice, should ALWAYS mean ownership of the product.

    A “borrow” or “rent” option is one that you expect to have to return the product.

    Google can’t have it both ways. They either sold people software or they rented it out. Since it was never advertised or marketed as the Google Play Rental Library, they should be forced to give people the products they paid for.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup, I’ve said it a million times, it needs to be made flatly illegal to use language that implies ownership if the company has any method of revoking your ownership of that product in the future. These threads always get the same libertarians that show up in discussions about non-functional slack fill saying “it’s not illegal, so what’s the problem?” The problem is that it isn’t illegal. Imagine if Toyota could come grab your car from your driveway, because even though you paid it off, subclause 74 of section G(2) says that the company retains the right to repossess property made by them at any time for any reason. You didn’t read a 200 page contract at the dealership when you bought the car, you just trusted that they wouldn’t fuck you. Toyota would get their ass reamed in court if they tried that, so why are Google and Microsoft and Sony and Steam allowed to do it?

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Between this (which happened to me on both Google play and Amazon) and audible audio books not being “mine” unless of course I log in to Amazon etc to get my DRM key, I am starting to reconsider how I obtain my stuff.

      This whole techno serfdom thing ain’t for me.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am starting to reconsider how I obtain my stuff.

        This is a good thing. I don’t know why modern business models for these companies seem to be intentionally anti-consumer, but people will find other ways to get what they are looking for. And if that means spending money with a more ethical company, or simply pirating, they’ll find the path of least resistance.

        I used to spend hundreds on the Google Play Store, buying apps and music all the time. Then they started playing stupid games, and I haven’t spent a dollar on the Play Store in years. My money goes to someone else.

        • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          At this point I’ve spent $12/mo for 4 years on Amazon music. That’s $576 dollars I could have spent on buying songs or CDs and that’s probably 576+ songs.

          I regret that I’ve streamed all of these years. And let’s be honestly, I rarely branch out to far afield from my favorite songs and artists. Who have probably received less money from me than if I just bought their cd and ripped it like we did 15 years ago. I also have way more storage on my phone than I ever did 15 years ago. I could keep quite a bit of my music synced and enjoy it whenever I want without worrying about data limits or if I’m on WiFi.

          Same goes with half the video streaming services. I watch a handful of shows and movies. I could have bought the ones I watch and never have to worry about “oh man, did they take x off of Netflix? What service is it on now? Ew Hulu, I have to watch ads with that even though I pay”.

          The 0% interest is drying up so these companies are trying to claw as much revenue and profit out of their services as they can and I wonder how many people it’s just going to drive away from it completely?

          I’ll stop watching prime video when they add ads.

          I don’t mind paying for services. I mind feeling like I’m getting shafted and duped every time I turn around. Raising the prices, making the experience worse, removing content, removing features, and then having the nerve to increase the prices by 50% in some cases. Get bent!

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I lucked out last year and ended up scoring something like 1000 DVDs for cheeeeaap. Like $100 or something. I ripped them all (minus any duplicates I already owned) and put them on my NAS. No more worrying about ads, data mining, or even internet/service outages ruining my evening.

            I did the same for all my CDs, and while we still do purchase CDs, they are way overpriced.

            But purchasing digital music and movies has become harder since Google Play Music went away. It’s almost too much effort to try to buy digital content these days, and it makes no sense. I want to pay for content, but making it impossible just doesn’t work for anyone.

            Amazon played their first ad for us on Prime Movies today… during a kid show no less. Just disgusting where things have ended up.

            • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My father in law has thousands of CDs he’s collected over the years that he’d probably let me have.

              And I just found out my local library sells old DVDs and Blu-rays for $.50 each. I should go drop $50 and buy em out. There were some great movies in there and a few that I’ve always wanted to watch.

              This thread just made me realize that I’ve hit my limit of bs with these services. Over lunch, I wrote a script to download yt videos and put them in my Plex library.

              • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And I just found out my local library sells old DVDs and Blu-rays for $.50 each.

                Holy crap, I need to see if our local library offers something like that. I used to go to their book sales, but never considered that they would be selling movies.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As far as im concerned, the equivalent here, should be a raw downloadable file. Much like how music purchases work.

      Anything other than that simply isn’t “buying”

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I recall purchasing Photoshop for Android, before it became Lightroom for Android.

        It was as close to the desktop Photoshop as you could get, and it wasn’t cheap.

        Google (or adobe) took it out of the play store, effectively cutting customers off and preventing them from installing it on new devices.

        Fortunately, I was rooted at the time and backed up the APK, which allowed me to use it for years longer and on newer devices. But the experience really had be second guessing whether I should keep “buying” apps on the play store.

        There are quite a few other instances where games and apps I purchased simply disappeared. Such an unethical business model.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            True, but as I recall it was more than just the APK that I needed to backup/restore to get it to work.

            It was so many years ago, so I really don’t remember the details, but the point was without a backup, I’d have lost access to the app I paid for.

  • TheAlbacor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good to see more people are understanding how anti-consumer our digital distribution laws are. Sucks they had to find out this way, but people have been warning of this for years.

  • kworpy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    And these companies think piracy is unjustified. No, it’s just holding out an umbrella in the rain.

    • muh_entitlement@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Piracy is ALWAYS justified! These companies are dead set on robbing me blind. Well guess what: if I never spent a nickel, there’s nothing to rob me of! To the high seas!

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    They all do this. I’ve had games or dlc vanish off my PlayStation account. When I called to complain, since they lost the records of my purchases, they won’t return them. I lost the receipts so long ago. I still have save files that require the DLCs

      • Matriks404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I normally don’t advocate for piracy if you can afford games, but if company doesn’t even allow you to buy them, then what other option is there? It’s like they want people to pirate their games.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it’s not on a shelf, then they don’t care about making money off it. Therefore they have nothing to complain about if you use it without paying.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I normally advocate for piracy. In cases like these, where some corpo comes in and STEALS from their customers (because let’s stop pretending this is anything else) I advocate for the other type of piracy, with sabers, cannons, rape, theft, pillaging and making some of these assholes walk a plank.