Google prefers Vibecoders to Open-Source Developers

Allow me to compare and contrast two different choices taken by Android developers. One, Google announced at I/O a new AI Studio application that will allow users to generate new application by simply asking for specific functionalities, all from your phone. You're able to share live deployment with your friends to gather feedback and collaborate. And you know what? I'm not against this. I think that AI is a good tool to quickly create their own application that do one specific task that you might that you might not find in existing applications. We all have our niche requirements, after all. The announcement also states, "Connect your Google Play developer account into AI Studio to publish your app to Google Play's internal test track with a single click." Now, the internal test track is a way to privately share an application on the Play Store to test it out with a limit of 100 registered users. This latter functionality seems to only be available on the desktop version of the AI Studio, but the general approach from Google seems to be to make it making it easier over time to share with friends or publicly an entirely web-coded application. Number two. In 96 days at the time of recording, it will become significantly harder to sideload Android application. Currently, you can install applications from any source, and depending on your exact Android derivative, you will be prompted to allow the manual install from your specific source. Like, "Are you sure you want to install this APK from Firefox?" This takes like a few seconds to click yes. In a few months, the same task will require the following, taken from Keep Android open. One, delve into system settings and find developer options. Tap the build number seven times to enable developer mode. Dismiss scare screens about coercion, enter your PIN, restart the device, wait 24 hours, come back, dismiss more scare screens, pick allow temporarily temporarily 7 days or allow indefinitely, confirm again that you understand the risks. As Keep Android Keep Android open states, nine steps and a mandatory 24-hours cooling off period for installing software on a device that you own. Allow me to express my frustration at this choice. This means that it will be significantly easier to try out a vibe coded app with a user that has no coding experience compared to try out an application from a mostly open source skilled developer. Forcing users to exclusively install applications from the Play Store or having a Play Store account means that Google has the final pick over whether you can install a certain application or not on your software. Even better, making it so easy to vibe code an application allows Google for even more complete control over your software stack as the application will be directly provided by them. As an example, five years ago Google decided to remove an application by Alexei Navalny made to organize tactical voting against Putin. According to Reuters, Russia had demanded Russia demanded this month that Apple and Google remove the app from their stores saying a refusal to do so would be treated as meddling its in its parliamentary elections. Both Google and Apple decided to comply with this request. A more ex- Sorry, a more recent example was published by 404 Media. Both Google and Apple recently removed Red Dot, an app people can use to report site sightings of ICE officials, ICE officials, from the respective app stores. Google told 404 Media it removed apps because they described the location of what it describes as a vulnerable group that recently faced a violent act connected to the source of ICE spotting apps, veiled veiled reference to ICE officials. As long as users are required or heavily incentivized to only use the Play Store as their only app source, those same users will be forced to comply with Google political stances, or rather the political stances of the government were able to force the company to comply. When moving towards heavier integrations of tools like Gemini in their Android developer workflow, Google is pushing their influence in the development phase of an application, not just the deployment. I see no reason to think that those same governments wouldn't be able to also force Google to disallow Gemini from creating such applications, not just publishing them. Generally speaking, Google is under very little scrutiny over its review process or applica- of applications. Uh another example is when they decided to pull an important emulator application out of the store without providing any reason for it. Though it could be argued that the emulator was infringing trademark, these claims are hard to dispute and generally settled in court, and here Google was able to unilaterally decide on the application future, and not much can be done about it. Publishing on the Play Store also requires paperwork and a small fee. This is likely trivial for somebody like me, but as the Keep Android Open Project points out, it it becomes a significant issue for developers from countries where Google does not allow developers to sign up from or in regions with limited access to Google infrastructure or in scenarios where quick deployment is required as an example for a local emergency response. This will soon be required to even share your application with a few friends unless of course you vibe coded. I hope you can see the absurdity in this. Is there anything we can do? I don't think so. >> [laughter] >> Here's the options. Well, there's an open letter that's been signed by mostly free and open source organizations. This includes KDE, Nextcloud, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, F-Droid, FSFE, Gnome, VLC, Tor, Proton, and more. There's also a change.org petition with 160,000 signatures and I have to say I highly doubt that this will have any significant consequence. A more likely path would be the regulatory one. American loves to make fun to of Europe's for their digital rights law such as the USB-C as a standard and the Digital Markets Act, but so far those laws are the single biggest source of user respecting software from these giant multinational corporations that we've seen. Apple Apple is now now allows application side loading to some extent and it has finally switched to USB-C for their phones as well. Users are now asked for their web browser and search engine of choice and interoperability is coming to messaging application and so on. These are all important victories to make that make everyday software more user respecting the opposite of what in my opinion Google is trying to do here. However, I don't think this approach will yield significant results. I'm afraid that Google will still argue that technically you're still able to install applications from third-party developers easily as long as they are registered with Google as described above or even unregistered developers through the mentioned nine-steps process. They're not effectively closing down the down the ecosystem, but they are making it significantly harder to avoid it. Nonetheless, I'll try asking my local MEP, the member of the European Parliament, about this the next time I see him. Who knows? I will quickly mention that yes, I'm sorry about my pronunciation, but if you hate to listen to my voice, I would understand. In the video description, you can find this video but as an article you can share with people and also that you can find links to donate to this channel to keep it up and running. And I think that's everything from me and I'll see you around. How do I stop this?