4 ms·
I'm with you. I fundamentally don't see the problem. I actually think it's great. My understanding was that Android apps were quite unsecure and could be pirat
by astr0n0m3r 2y ago
I'm with you. I fundamentally don't see the problem. I actually think it's great.
My understanding was that Android apps were quite unsecure and could be pirated and distributed by another "developer" in an app store in a different country without the original developer ever knowing.
- ranger_danger 2y agoOn the surface it sounds like an ok idea but IMO it's giving (even more) too much power to the play store to control what apps you can and can't install on your own device.
- astr0n0m3r 2y agoThe original developer makes the decision, and they have to actively choose it when it makes sense for their app. Only pirated apps are affected. Some software should be free. Software that is nonfree has its place as well and should be allowed to have restrictions so the developers can protect their hard work, get paid, feed their families, etc. I really am looking at this from the indie developer's perspective.
- iggldiggl 2y ago> Only pirated apps are affected. Local backups would unfortunately end up as collateral damage.
- greentea23 2y agoF-Droid style delivery is far more secure than anything from Apple or Google. This is only possible on Android since Apple only allows you to install mysterious binary files from their myaterious store on their mysterious OS. FDroid attests the source code directly by building the app it distributes instead of relying on trusting the developer to upload a black box binary. https://f-droid.org/docs/Security_Model/ https://f-droid.org/docs/Security_Model/