Google blocked Pixel 8, Pixel 8 Pro reviewers from using popular benchmarks to test the Tensor G3 chip, new owners too
www.notebookcheck.net
Google has taken the extraordinary step to block reviewers from being able to download popular chip testing benchmarks directly through its Play Store, surprising reviewers of its latest Pixel 8 series smartphones. Incredibly, the company has extended this block to include all new customers of its Pixel 8 phones following the launch, in attempt to suppress the widespread distribution of results.

cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2289548 ([email protected])

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

  • @CheesusEnglish
    11•1 year ago

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

    • ijeffOPMEnglish
      33•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.

      • @CheesusEnglish
        23•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.

        • @[email protected]English
          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.

      • @[email protected]English
        10•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.

        • ijeffOPMEnglish
          2•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?

          • @[email protected]English
            2•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.

    • @[email protected]English
      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.

      • @[email protected]English
        3•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.