5 ms·

Unfortunately with SafetyNet, I feel like an investment into Android is also a losing proposition...I can only anticipate being slowly cut off from the Android

by cle 5y ago

Unfortunately with SafetyNet, I feel like an investment into Android is also a losing proposition...I can only anticipate being slowly cut off from the Android app ecosystem as more apps onboard with attestation. We've collectively handed control of our personal computing devices over to Apple and Google. I fear the long-term consequences of that will not be positive...

trangus_1985 5y ago
I don't think it's implausible that I carry around a phone that has mail, contacts, calendars, photos, and private chat on it. And then, have a second, older phone that has like Instagram and mobile games. It's tragic.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Unfortunately a big bulk of the data they profit off of is simply the ads and on-platform communication and behavior. Doesn't really matter if you use a different device if you still use the platform. Sure, it's slightly better, but it really isn't a silver bullet if you're still using it. And this is coming from someone who does this already.
  - trangus_1985 5y ago
    I don't really mind if they make a profit off of the free things I use. What I mind is when my personal life, the stuff that _actually_ matters, is being monitored or has a backdoor that allows ANY third party easy access to monitor it.
techrat 5y ago
Loosing sight of the forest for this one tree. 1) Google doesn't release devices without unlockable bootloaders. They have always been transparent in allowing people to unlock their Nexus and Pixels. Nexus was for developers, Pixels are geared towards the end user. Nothing changed with regards to the bootloaders. 2) Google uses Coreboot for their ChromeOS devices. Again, you couldn't get more open than that if you wanted to buy a Chromebook and install something else on it. 3) To this day, app sideloading on Android remains an option. They've even made it easier for third party app stores to automatically update apps with 12. 4) AOSP. Sure, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles as the latest and greatest packaged up skin and OS release, but all of the features that matter within Android, especially if you're going to de-Google yourself, are still there. Any one of those points, but consider all four, and I have trouble understanding why people think REEEEEEEE Google. So you can't play with one ball in the garden (SafetyNet), you've still got the rest of the toys. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept in order to be able to do what I want to and how I want to do it. (Eg, Rooting or third party roms.) If you don't like what they do on their mobile OS, there's nothing that Google is doing to lock you into a Walled Garden to where the only option you have is to completely give up what you're used to... ...Unlike Apple. Not one iOS device has been granted an unlockable bootloader. Ever.
- Zak 5y ago
  Safetynet is becoming a problem, and the trend shows to signs of slowing down. I shouldn't have to choose between keeping full control over my device and being able to use it to access the modern world.
  - NotPractical 5y ago
    For instance: The McDonald's app uses SafetyNet and won't run on an unlocked device.[1] Google doesn't place any restrictions on which types of apps can use SafetyNet. Banking apps tend to use it, but so do an increasing number of apps that clearly shouldn't need it. (For the record, I don't think SafetyNet should exist at all, but if Google is pretending it's for the user's security and not just to allow developers to make it harder to reverse engineer their fast food apps, they should at least set some boundaries.) It's frustrating that Google has fostered an ecosystem where not all "Android apps" work on vanilla Android. [1] https://twitter.com/topjohnwu/status/1277683005843111936 https://twitter.com/topjohnwu/status/1277683005843111936
    - Zak 5y ago
      I think a system to verify the integrity of the operating system and make the user aware of any changes is a Good Thing. Of course, the user should be in control of what signing keys are trusted and who else gets access to that information. Instead, what Google has done is allowed app developers to check that the user isn't doing anything surprising - especially unprofitable things like blocking ads or spoofing tracking data. Since Google profits from ads and tracking, I must assume a significant part of their motivation is to make unprofitable behavior inconvenient enough most people won't do it.
- shbooms 5y ago
  "1) Google doesn't release devices without unlockable bootloaders. They have always been transparent in allowing people to unlock their Nexus and Pixels. Nexus was for developers, Pixels are geared towards the end user. Nothing changed with regards to the bootloaders." This is not accurate. Pixels that come from Verizon have bootloaders that cannot be fully unlocked.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> We've collectively handed control of our personal computing devices over to Apple and Google Hey now, the operating system and app distribution cartels include Microsoft, too.
- cle 5y ago
  Totally agree, I was thinking more within the context of mobile phones.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    To be fair, even if Blackberry was still a viable platform, RIM is no better and in some ways even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1649963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1649963
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      WebOS and Maemo both were much more open, the latter even had apt.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  Windows, for all the shit they do to antagonize users, does let you choose what programs you install on your PC without forcing you to use an app store.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Well, for the most part at least. Remember Windows RT and Windows 10 S?
    - rutthenut 5y ago
      Yep, got a tablet here that is now a brick as Windows RT is no use

by cle 5y ago

trangus_1985 5y ago

I don't think it's implausible that I carry around a phone that has mail, contacts, calendars, photos, and private chat on it. And then, have a second, older phone that has like Instagram and mobile games. It's tragic.

sodality2 5y ago
Unfortunately a big bulk of the data they profit off of is simply the ads and on-platform communication and behavior. Doesn't really matter if you use a different device if you still use the platform. Sure, it's slightly better, but it really isn't a silver bullet if you're still using it. And this is coming from someone who does this already.
- trangus_1985 5y ago
  I don't really mind if they make a profit off of the free things I use. What I mind is when my personal life, the stuff that _actually_ matters, is being monitored or has a backdoor that allows ANY third party easy access to monitor it.

techrat 5y ago

Loosing sight of the forest for this one tree. 1) Google doesn't release devices without unlockable bootloaders. They have always been transparent in allowing people to unlock their Nexus and Pixels. Nexus was for developers, Pixels are geared towards the end user. Nothing changed with regards to the bootloaders. 2) Google uses Coreboot for their ChromeOS devices. Again, you couldn't get more open than that if you wanted to buy a Chromebook and install something else on it. 3) To this day, app sideloading on Android remains an option. They've even made it easier for third party app stores to automatically update apps with 12. 4) AOSP. Sure, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles as the latest and greatest packaged up skin and OS release, but all of the features that matter within Android, especially if you're going to de-Google yourself, are still there. Any one of those points, but consider all four, and I have trouble understanding why people think REEEEEEEE Google. So you can't play with one ball in the garden (SafetyNet), you've still got the rest of the toys. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept in order to be able to do what I want to and how I want to do it. (Eg, Rooting or third party roms.) If you don't like what they do on their mobile OS, there's nothing that Google is doing to lock you into a Walled Garden to where the only option you have is to completely give up what you're used to... ...Unlike Apple. Not one iOS device has been granted an unlockable bootloader. Ever.

Zak 5y ago
Safetynet is becoming a problem, and the trend shows to signs of slowing down. I shouldn't have to choose between keeping full control over my device and being able to use it to access the modern world.
- NotPractical 5y ago
  For instance: The McDonald's app uses SafetyNet and won't run on an unlocked device.[1] Google doesn't place any restrictions on which types of apps can use SafetyNet. Banking apps tend to use it, but so do an increasing number of apps that clearly shouldn't need it. (For the record, I don't think SafetyNet should exist at all, but if Google is pretending it's for the user's security and not just to allow developers to make it harder to reverse engineer their fast food apps, they should at least set some boundaries.) It's frustrating that Google has fostered an ecosystem where not all "Android apps" work on vanilla Android. [1] https://twitter.com/topjohnwu/status/1277683005843111936 https://twitter.com/topjohnwu/status/1277683005843111936
  - Zak 5y ago
    I think a system to verify the integrity of the operating system and make the user aware of any changes is a Good Thing. Of course, the user should be in control of what signing keys are trusted and who else gets access to that information. Instead, what Google has done is allowed app developers to check that the user isn't doing anything surprising - especially unprofitable things like blocking ads or spoofing tracking data. Since Google profits from ads and tracking, I must assume a significant part of their motivation is to make unprofitable behavior inconvenient enough most people won't do it.
shbooms 5y ago
"1) Google doesn't release devices without unlockable bootloaders. They have always been transparent in allowing people to unlock their Nexus and Pixels. Nexus was for developers, Pixels are geared towards the end user. Nothing changed with regards to the bootloaders." This is not accurate. Pixels that come from Verizon have bootloaders that cannot be fully unlocked.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> We've collectively handed control of our personal computing devices over to Apple and Google Hey now, the operating system and app distribution cartels include Microsoft, too.

cle 5y ago
Totally agree, I was thinking more within the context of mobile phones.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  To be fair, even if Blackberry was still a viable platform, RIM is no better and in some ways even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1649963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1649963
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    WebOS and Maemo both were much more open, the latter even had apt.
MiddleEndian 5y ago
Windows, for all the shit they do to antagonize users, does let you choose what programs you install on your PC without forcing you to use an app store.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Well, for the most part at least. Remember Windows RT and Windows 10 S?
  - rutthenut 5y ago
    Yep, got a tablet here that is now a brick as Windows RT is no use