I know it's not really ready for it yet, but I guess I'm gonna be looking into a Linux phone before I thought I would.
post
This is about Revanced, isn't it? They failed to kill it via the YouTube backend so now it's down to lock down the os and browsers as much as possible to keep feeding people the juicy ads.
It's time to start self hosting your own services people!
Yeah, but that doesn't help if you can't make apps that support the hosted services. Google is trying to have complete ownership of what runs on your phone.
I been doin it for years already!! It's easy to just set up a 4-bay NAS with docker containers running apps that replace your existing cloud services
This is about preparing for DMA and the likes in other countries.
I don't see how the DMA would cause this other than Google preemptively setting themselves up for malicious compliance. The whole point of the DMA seems to be to give users choice not take it away.
DMA is only partly for choice. Sorry, different act, but same group (EU). But the rest pretty much stands the same, the EU won't see it as malicious compliance, but as a great design choice.
This is also huge part of it about being able to “prevent illegal” content.
“easier reporting of illegal content” “less exposure to illegal content” “level-playing field against providers of illegal content”
This will help give paper trails for everything, and that allows for easy reporting which is the bigger part of the DMA.
I think you're on point with the malicious compliance. Google doesn't want to give up power and control. Requiring all installations to run through them seems to be their workaround.
Something kind of concerning I just found - there's an option for "limited distribution" which is "Intended for 'students, hobbyists, and other personal use.'" One of the differences is the following:
Has "capped number of apps and installs"(specific limits not disclosed)
Doesn't this imply there's going to be global tracking of what apps people are installing even through sideloading or APKs? I can't think of any other way to enforce this. They would have to know how many times people installed an app even when its not through any kind of app store or even from the internet at all.
I'm pretty sure that was implemented a while ago. My install of VLC from F-Droid started showing up in Play Store's update list.
It couldn't update since the signature didn't match, but Google knew about it and included it anyway.
That has just always been the case as long as the app in both stores uses the same package string. (Like org.blitzortung.android.app or org.videolan.vlc)
Wasn't always the case (I think it changed within the past two years), but upon doing research on when it changed I stumbled on this gem.
"Google would never do something like that" comments just one year ago. Oh my! Google dropped the "don't be evil" motto a long time ago.
It's been the case ever since I started using Android (and modded APKs such as old versions of apps re-signed to not update) in about 2011.
Some of the root apps back then such as Titanium Backup had features to "unhook" an app so it wouldn't appear as installed in the store, but my experience was that it never lasted long enough to be worth doing.
Could be, but that could also just be done locally. Like your phone checking the apps you have installed and seeing if the same ones are on the play store. Having an install limit for an app - assuming that means that the app can only be installed some total number of times globally (a local install limit wouldn't make any sense I think) - necessarily implies that when you install an app through an APK, it has to tell Google that you installed that app so it can track how many people have installed it and not approve installation of the app if it's over whatever the limit is.
If your phone is checking for that information, it's a safe bet it's reporting it back to Google.
I think that's how it works when you have apps with the same name from different app stores, I noticed it with a different app like two years ago.
That's interesting. I was just checking to see if Cromite showed up there but couldn't find it, is there a menu you found yours under outside the update tab? If something as simple as a browser I use is going to be blocked from installs/monitored I can't see why I'd stay in this ecosystem.
They provide the OS, what makes you think that kind of tracking isn't already happening?
App stores provide the apks but then you'll use your phone's installer to actually, well, install the apks.
Presumably that will work like test flight does where you can only install the app through an invite system
This is the risk of "trusted computing" architectures. Who is governing the "trusted" part of that.
These cryptographic signatures are not as much of a death knell for Android as some would have you believe. The trick is to get a common code signing cert into your device, that is then used to sign any third party APK you want to run. You can avoid the Google tax this way. I assume that's how most sideloading sites and apps are going to handle this.
The question is, how do you add that certificate? Is it easy and straight forward (with plenty of scary warnings), as a user? Or is it going to be a developer options deal? Or will I need root to add the cert?
I'm not sure what that answer is right now.
I just want to finish this post with a few words about trusted computing models. Plainly: Apple has been doing this for years ... That's why you download basically everything from an app store with Apple. Whether on your Mac OS device, your iPhone, iPad or whatever iDevice.... Whether the devs need to sign it, or the app gets signed when it lands on the store, there's a signature to ensure that the app hasn't been tampered with and that Apple has given the app it's security blessings, that it is safe to run. Microsoft and Google have both been climbing towards the same forever. Apple embedded their root of trust in their own proprietary TPM which has been included with every Mac, and iDevice for a long ass time. Google also has a TPM, the Titan security module, I believe that was introduced around pixel 3? Or 4?... Microsoft made huge waves requiring it for Windows 11, and we all know what that discussion looks like. Apple requires a TPM (which they supply, so nobody noticed), Google has been adding a TPM and TPM functionality to their phones for years, and now Windows is the same. None of this is a bad thing. Trusted computing can eliminate much of the need for antivirus software, among other things. I digress. We've been going this way for a long time. Google is just more or less, doing what Apple has already done, and what Microsoft will very likely do very soon, making it a requirement. Battlefield 6 I think, was one of the first to require trusted computing on Windows and it will, for damned sure, not be the last that does. The only real hurdle here is managing what is trusted. So far, each vendor has kept the keys to their own kingdoms, but this is contrary to computing concepts. Like the Internet, it should be able to be done without needing trust from a specific provider. That's how SSL works, that's how the Internet works, that's how trusted computing should work. The only thing that should be secret is the private signing keys. What Google, Apple, and Microsoft should be doing, is issuing intermediary keys that can sign code signing certs. So trusted institutions that create apps, like... Idk, valve as an example, can create a signature key for steam and sign Steam with it, so the trust goes from MS root to intermediary key for valve, to steam code signing key, and suddenly you have an app that's trusted. Valve can then use their key to sign software on their store that may not have a coffee signing key of it's own. This is just one example based on Windows. And above all of this, the user should be able to import a trusted code signing cert, or an intermediary cert signing cert, to their service as trusted.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
top 51 comments