cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2289548 (!googlepixel@lemdro.id)

According to the comments section, users have been able to sideload them without issues. Play Store has since begun allowing the installs.

Updated: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Google-Pixel-8-Pixel-8-Pro-benchmark-block-lifted.759613.0.html

Google has lifted the block it placed on the ability for users to freely install benchmarking apps on its Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro smartphones. The block had been in place during the review embargo period but extended past the on sale period where customers purchasing the devices couldn’t install benchmarks on their new Pixels either.

Update 2: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Exclusive-Google-confirms-with-Notebookcheck-it-blocked-benchmarks-during-Pixel-8-Pixel-8-Pro-review-embargo-period.761443.0.html

  • dragnet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is insane. Straight up blacklisting popular software because they don’t want people to look too closely at what they purchased. It’s amazing what the public is willing to accept, just such a constant stream of reports about bad behavior from companies that most people can’t find the energy to care.

    • Cheesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was an android 14 compatibility issue and the app has since been updated and runs fine.

      • ijeff@lemdro.idOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The app hasn’t been updated but the Play Store block has indeed been lifted. People were sideloading without issue. Perhaps Google intended for the block to only last until launch to prevent reviewers only.

        • Cheesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Android 14 uses new APIs and Google requires everyone to update their SDK to say whether or not it uses the new APIs. If they did nothing it was flagged as an incompatible app, but if they don’t use the APIs it will run fine.

          You can usually adjust your app and publish an update without needing to change the app’s targetSdkVersion. Similarly, you should not need to use new APIs or change the app’s compileSdkVersion, although this can depend on the way your app is built and the platform functionality it’s using.

          https://developer.android.com/about/versions/14/migration

          You can update the SDK without triggering an update to the app and it will be available on the play store.

          Occam’s razor applies here.

          • hank_and_deans@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes. I have a personal app that I made many years ago and used on my Pixel 4 and 6. It would not work on my 8 until I updated the sdk version and some of the tooling.

        • Steve
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is actual compatibility, and official compatibility.

          The updated apps likely didn’t have any code changed. (why they still worked when side loaded) Instead, the Play Store listing updated the compatibility filter to include Android 14, so 14 users could now see them in the Play Store.

          It’s not an uncommon practice. Many apps might simply have a compatibility filter like “yes if [OS version > X]”. But that can be a problem if some future OS breaks compatibility. Especially in the case of a benchmark app that’s supposed to give comparable results between OS versions. If the new OS tweaks something that doesn’t fully break the benchmark, but causes inaccurate numbers, that would need to be checked before it gets approved.

          • ijeff@lemdro.idOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not seeing updated versions of the listings on my end (in terms of the last updated entry). Unless compatibility can be set separately?

            • Steve
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unless compatibility can be set separately?

              I imagine it could. It would be strange need to upload a “new version” of the app, when nothing actually changed accept approving a new OS for that version. Then you need to track which version numbers are real changes, and which aren’t. That would be weird.

      • dragnet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, so I fell for reactionary bs assuming that a fairly well written article had good information? Dammit. =P Thanks for the info, that sounds a lot more plausible to me.

        • NoDoy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          At least you acknowledged it. The title of this post should have a misleading tag at best. There’s no wonder that no other major outlets have reported on this.

  • evo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Irresponsible reporting. The app couldn’t be installed because the min API version of the app didn’t meet the requirements for Android 14.

    Google didn’t “block” anything, this is fear mongering.

  • yoevli@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This article seems to be outdated as both apps are now visible in the Play Store and I had no problems downloading and running them. A comment suggests that it may be due to the previous minimum SDK target for the apps being too low. I’d be willing to chalk this up to being more innocuous than active malice on Google’s part.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Don’t Be Evil” always sounded odd. As if that sort of thing needed to be said.

      After 20+ years of consistent anti-consumer behaviour, Alphabet gets no benefit of the doubt.

      • Goose306@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        When this first came out I checked on my Pixel 7 which is on A14 already and I didn’t have the apps available either.

        They are now available.

        So yeah, it’s almost certainly on the app developers who didn’t target the new API version available, not Google. New Pixels launch with new versions of Android, but you can validate the same issue on older Pixels who have already upgraded to the new Android version.

      • DeathToZerg@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s even more odd they got rid of that saying in 2015 and replaced it with “Do the right thing”. I’m not sure it was an improvement.

        • ares35@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          definitely not an ‘improvement’…

          the ‘right’ thing, according to who? why, the shareholders, of course.

  • seang96@spgrn.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t this because the minimum SDK level increase requirement in the play store and android 14? This gets rid of older Lapis that are less efficient or secure from modern apps. The benchmarking tools haven’t targeted newer APIs and are thus the ones at fault. Devs need to keep their stuff updated; that’s half the point of the beta period every year for the major version releases.

    • ijeff@lemdro.idOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      People seem to be reporting that they were able to sideload without issue and the restriction was subsequently lifted from the Play Store.

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

        That’s not the point. Those restrictions applied to the SDK level, which is why these apps were not available on the play store. This is easily verifiable. It’s incomprehensible how such a mind boggling dumb move would be intentional on Google’s part.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds a bit like a false narrative to be honest. Given how trivial it is to sideload, it doesn’t make sense for Google to have thought disallowing installation from the Play Store would stop anyone from benchmarking. It seems implausible to me.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    People in the business of reviewing Android phones couldn’t possibly know about sideloading. I’m shocked anyone at Google thought this would do anything but make them look bad.

    • PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It would probably violate agreements and they’d blacklist the reviewers for future releases. It would also make those reviewers look bad if they don’t respect review agreements and embargos. Other companies might not trust them with preview units.

      I agree Google looks absurd here. But if my living was being made reviewing things, I wouldn’t want to risk companies not giving me the early look that reviewers get. Especially when I can just wait till the device comes out and benchmark it then, since there’s no longer an embargo or agreement once a device goes public

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

        A reviewer who’s being ethical would note any such demands from a manufacturer in their review, or refuse to review a product if the demands were too extreme. Banning benchmarks from reviews is pretty questionable, though not unprecedented. I should note that I am a reviewer, though not of phones and I don’t make my living from it. I have encountered and rejected the occasional unethical request (usually manufacturers wanting to screen the review’s content before publication).

        Trying to keep people from benchmarking it via the Play Store is the absurd part. They can use a contract for reviewers, but that’s not even going to slow down sophisticated end users.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I guess my Pixel 6 Pro better hold on for at least another generation. Those test results don’t look good, especially on efficiency.

  • twistypencil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Terrible move, makes me not want to engage in the entire android ecosystem if they are going to pull this shit

    • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, let’s just move to checks notes iOS? Oh, they also constantly pull shady, anticonsumer bullshit. There’s no winning for us.

  • Techmaster@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I miss the days when Google’s corporate motto was don’t be evil.

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

      And if you think about it, it’s not a high bar.