all 56 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 187 points 1 year ago

An accurate title would read something like: Google wants to make side loading apps more difficult by adding extra steps under the guise of security in order to maintain market dominance and continue spying on the user.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 99 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yay, Google adding another hurdle for alternative app stores and their developers...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Ridiculous, mother of bullshit! Switching to Linux appears to be the only option left for a personal computing device.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Just turn off Google Play Protect and it'll let you sideload whatever you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You can't seriously actually trust that turning it off in the Google owned app they control or update will be meaningful. I'm really sick of people claiming it is, and I hope this will get them to realize that.

    If you want to crush it fully, disable google play store as a whole, and make sure to tell your friends too because if that solution doesn't get more popular there might not be third party apps to install since the devs will just quit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I dunno, you're the one claiming stuff that isn't necessarily true (yet). This is a proposed update to Google Play Protect. You don't have to have Google Play Protect enabled, and disabling it doesn't really impact anything unless you're the type of person to just download an apk from unverified sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I keep play protect enabled in case I download anything unsafe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Honestly we need a community OS like Android/Chome OS

    I like Linux but it would be really cool to have a OS that was less modular and more purpose built. I feel like there is enough people interested that we could raise some money to hire some developers. On think Chome OS and Android get right is the hassle free unified experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There's GrapheneOS that I think would try to address this problem β€” secure, proper architecture, compatible with some major app stack (e.g. Android apps). It's AOSP-based, but they're already thinking ahead up to a point where they would be forced to fork it and even work with OEMs to create their own phone hardware for it. There are a couple of threads on their Mastodon.

    I don't know how much they would be able to achieve, but I would pay for such system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Graphene doesn't play nice with others

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, unfortunately. It's their con, but also their pro at the same time. It's bad because they end up isolated from everyone else playing nice with each other, and then no one wants to deal with them, but they also don't agree on compromises that might hinder security or the stability and development of their project. And I respect that. That is partly a reason why they created probably the most secure and private AOSP distrubution nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • they don't compromises that might hinder security or the stability

    I call BS on that one. It feels more to me like they are seeking power and control. They could seriously benefit from working with other projects but they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure, to make it safer in the same way Microsoft made you safer by making it harder to install Linux with UEFI.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't it actually easier with UEFI since you can have multiple bootloaders and updating windows doesn't overwrite any other bootloaders? I think the issue arises from secureboot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago
    [–] 35 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Let Android be free, fuck off Google.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    You can't convince me this wasn't Google's plan from the very beginning.

    • Open source it, Gain market share,
    • Push ads/capitalize on data harvesting
    • Corner OEMs to include their malware
    • Gradually make it harder for ROM developers to gain access
    • Lock it down
    • Profit

    They stole tons of features from custom ROMs but never implemented the ability to turn off internet for specific apps so they could push ads and track users.They made turning location "on" a requirement to scan wifi, calling it a security feature. They re-enable "background data" on all apps with an Android update. These are just off the top of my head.

    Chromium works towards same goal as well. They never wanted to defeat apple, monopoly, they wanted to become part of the duopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 30 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    At some point that stops being sideloading.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    I've never wanted to get all my devices totally detached from google until recently.

    They are going full mask off right now.

    They're prepping to be the surveillance service for the global fascist oligarchy.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Year of the Linux phone in 2026?

  • source
  • [+] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    In the meantime, we're already verifying signatures for sideloaded apps. Can't say the same about play store apps.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Great, Apple style app notarization is just about the last thing I want on my damn phone.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Every year that goes by mobile computing gets less and less interesting.

    Might as well just buy the cheapest one that will do the job and call it done. So sense in spending top dollar very often when it is just a severely limited black box, like a video game console.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Lmao "safer" FOH monopolistic pieces of shit.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Glad i run only LineageOS with no gapps.

    I wonder if this will do the same thing that happened to Windows when Windows 11 wouldn't support older devices and people switched on mass to Linux.

    Either way, you're gonna have a bifurcated Android. One Android for the plebs where Google controls everything, and one Android for those who know where Google controls nothing.

    Sounds like this is going to stop things like me telling my friend to install new pipe from afteroid because they can skip YouTube ads.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    can they not just develop a method like they do for verifying websites with an .android folder or something? requiring everyone into a centralised place is garbage.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh I see someone already made a post. I can't see how this is enforceable except for highly modifying the OS. It would have to be enforced at the device level correct,?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It'll be part of Google Play "Protect", part of "gapps" not AOSP. Manufacturers have to ship all of gapps or none. Its not clear if this will block installs/updates, add a nag screen occasionally or fully block running these apps/disable them.

    This is the equivalent of Apples Notarization which they just used to block apps after the EU told them to allow users to install apps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    So disable play protect and this goes away

    Edit: I do want to add that I HOPE this is what is needed to bypass this... If they block my modded and github APKs I'm going to go fucking nuclear

    EDIT: further research shows this will not be based on play protect but will be implemented in the APK itself. I hope this shit can be patched out because you know Google is doing to do this with YouTube to kill revanced

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    So disable play protect and this goes away

    You'll probably have to disable Play Store for it to go away, Turning off Play Protect isn't very effective anyway. Even with it off it has still disabled apps automatically and warned me. I disabled Play Store and the behavior went away.

    EDIT: further research shows this will not be based on play protect but will be implemented in the APK itself. I hope this shit can be patched out because you know Google is doing to do this with YouTube to kill revanced

    I think you might be confusing this with App Integrity which Google offers to developers to include in their apps, this change is to prevent people from installing their own apps, likely with a dialogue to interrupt it. Play Protect can already interrupt installations asking you to agree or not. That's in all likelihood the mechanic they'll use to enforce this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can this be bypassed by using adb to sideload, I wonder?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment