Google pushes developers to make apps for tablets and foldables

Recently, Google revised its Play Store guidelines and ranking algorithms to prioritise apps and games optimised for large screens. Apps and games that require optimization will be ranked lower in the Play Store, and those with high crash rates will also be included in this ranking."Apps and games that adhere to their large screen app quality guidelines will now be ranked higher in search and Apps and Games Home," reads the blog post, announcing the new Play Store for large screens.

Browser developers push back on Google's “web DRM” WEI API

Google's plans to introduce the Web Environment Integrity (WEI) API on Chrome has been met with fierce backlash from internet software developers, drawing criticism for limiting user freedom and undermining the core principles of the open web.

Employees from Vivaldi, Brave, and Firefox have taken a strong, opposing stance against Google's proposed standard, and some have gone as far as to call it DRM (digital rights management) for websites.

Web Environment Integrity (WEI) is a new API proposal that introduces a website trust mechanism that allows websites to evaluate the authenticity of devices and network traffic on clients (browsers) and block fake or insecure interactions.

For example, this mechanism can be used to detect whether a human or bot is visiting a website or whether a particular browser on a specific type of device is trustworthy.

Websites will use the API to request a token from a certified "attester," which will be cryptographically signed to prevent tampering, helping the former validate that the client's information is legitimate.

The purported goal of the WEI proposal is to help websites ascertain the authenticity of the device and software stack from which they're receiving traffic and protect users from fraud by deterring malicious online activities.

Example use cases include detecting fake engagement on social media, phishing campaigns, non-human traffic, bulk account hijacking attempts, game cheating, compromised devices, and password brute-forcing.

Google says this is not a privacy risk as it does not enable cross-site user tracking and won't interfere with browser or plugins/extensions functionality.

Although the above sounds positive and helpful, Vivaldi browser's developer J. Picalausa called WEI "dangerous" in a write-up published earlier this week.

"If an entity has the power of deciding which browsers are trusted and which are not, there is no guarantee that they will trust any given browser," writes Picalausa.

"Any new browser would by default not be trusted until they have somehow demonstrated that they are trustworthy, to the discretion of the attesters."

Also, Picalausa underlines the vagueness of Google's proposal, which he says leaves a significant margin for potential abuse like collecting behavioral data from clients.

Vivaldi's post further explains that choosing not to implement WEI will be complicated, as Google can very easily abuse its dominant position in the advertising market to enforce its adoption by the majority of sites, rendering dissenting browser projects useless.

The Brave browser team, however, does not fear this scenario as its co-founder and CEO, Brendan Eich, confirmed that they do not plan to ship WEI.

In response to a thread on Twitter, Eich stated that WEI support will not be shipped in Brave, just as they do with many other privacy-intrusive mechanisms Google inserts into Chrome's code which Brave uses as its basis.

As for Mozilla, the internet organization has yet to express an official opinion. However, Firefox engineer Brian Grinstead commented earlier this week that Mozilla opposes the proposal as it contradicts its principles and vision for the web.

"Mechanisms that attempt to restrict these choices are harmful to the openness of the Web ecosystem and are not good for users," reads Grinstead's statement.

"Additionally, the use cases listed depend on the ability to "detect non-human traffic" which as described would likely obstruct many existing uses of the web such as assistive technologies, automatic testing, and archiving & search engine spiders."

Currently, Google's WEI API proposal is still in an early development phase and may change form or be significantly changed if all stakeholders agree to its implementation.

Also, it will be interesting to see the response of anti-monopolist legislative mechanisms and competition authorities to this proposal if Google attempts to impose it aggressively despite the voices of concern and multiple objections against it. 

BleepingComputer has contacted Apple and Microsoft about whether they will support this new standard but has not received a response at this time.

App developers at the mercy of Apple and Google

When I began my career as a marketing technologist, the tech landscape looked nothing like it does today. Over the years, the U.S. tech sector has grown in incredible ways, and at a breakneck pace. This economic growth has been a boon to communities across the country, including right here in Minnesota. I know first-hand just how rewarding the tech sector can be. As the CEO of a digital marketing firm based here in Minneapolis, I know the impact the digital economy has had on their state.

In a time of economic uncertainty, they need to promote policies that will create jobs and grow the economy. In the tech sector, I am greatly concerned about the anticompetitive practices of Apple and Google when it comes to their app stores.

Just look at the mobile application ecosystem as an example. Millions of Americans rely on their smartphones for a huge range of digital products and services. However, only two companies control the vast majority of all mobile devices: Apple and Google. Because these companies make the operating systems that almost all smartphones rely upon – iOS and Android – they are able to dominate the mobile app marketplace.

In practice, Apple and Google have become gatekeepers to the entire app economy. Their control over their operating systems – and by extension their respective app stores – allow them to enforce arbitrary policies and levy onerous fees on all developers seeking access to their app stores.

Article continues after advertisement

At their company, they provide their customers with new approaches to digital product development, and that includes building mobile products and experiences. Unfortunately, startups face the question of whether to even deal with Apple’s arbitrary App Store policies on a daily basis. What they have found is that Apple’s app review process has nothing to do with safety, security or the consumer. In reality, Apple’s app review process is a litmus test to see just how badly developers want access to the App Store. It’s not transparent, it’s inconsistent, and it’s incredibly costly for app developers. That combination can be a death sentence for a startup or a small business.

Building a minimum viable product – essentially a working beta version of an app – can cost up to $1 million dollars and take months to complete. If that version gets rejected, many times without explanation, it can be devastating to their clients. That means small businesses and non-profits right here in Minnesota live and die at the whims of Apple.

But hope isn’t lost. There is a solution to this problem, and it is legislation called the Open App Markets Act. This bipartisan bill will help open the app store ecosystem and introduce real competition to the marketplace.

Specifically, the Open App Markets Act will prevent app stores from forcing developers to use their in-app payment systems, ban self-preference schemes, allow developers to directly communicating with their customers, and allow customers to obtain apps directly from brands they know and trust.

Ultimately, these changes will benefit consumers the most. In any scenario where a few companies dominate a marketplace, consumers end up paying higher prices for inferior goods and services. That’s true of the mobile app ecosystem of today.

Josh Kimber

Ideologically, I’m opposed to federal regulations for the sake of regulation. But when it comes to the mobile app ecosystem, they clearly need their leaders to take action on the federal level to bolster competition, support small businesses, and protect consumers.

The choice is simple: take action so their tech sector can continue to thrive in Minnesota and across the country or sit on their hands and allow Big Tech companies in California to dominate the entire ecosystem.

Josh Kimber is the founder of Jola Marketing.

If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see their Submission Guidelines.)

As a nonprofit newsroom, MinnPost relies on donations from readers like you.

Donate today to keep their in-depth journalism free for all to access.