6 ms·

This is not related to malware or scams, and using that is nothing but a PR smoke screen. While Android is vulnerable, especially to user stupidity, people mos

This is not related to malware or scams, and using that is nothing but a PR smoke screen. While Android is vulnerable, especially to user stupidity, people mostly get scammed by fake credit card charges or by giving access to their notifications and contacts allowing for spam. And yes, while there are "infected" APK's for popular apps , this again isn't the case here. The real case here is money. Apple earns $27B from commision on apps, while Google earns about $3B. Why? Because Android users are "less willing to pay", which includes pirated APK's and "unlocked" app versions. Eliminating the possibility of using these for 99% of the people will be enough to force them to pay for that app/service in the end, raising the Play store revenues. Do not trust Google when it comes to "doing it for the user" - their mission is to establish as strong of a monopoly on the platforms and extract as much value as possible. They spent more money on lawyers & policy lobbyists in the last 10 years trying to keep Android closed than some S&P500 companies are worth.

cft 1y ago
Their incentive is even stronger: most users of ReVanced for example unlock YouTube, which belongs to Google. In that case we are talking about 100% revenue loss, not 30% app commission. This goes for NewPipe, etc. I wonder if OsmAnd, Termux, F-Droid would survive this or will be casualties. Who will authenticate for a decentralized open source app that has 100 active contributors?
- Belphemur 1y ago
  Exactly, especially when Google can revoke your account or keys at anytime. Basically this give Google the way to blacklist any app you release now, in or out the play store for the sake of "security". It's just about control and finally squashing the app that aren't to Google taste.
- V__ 1y ago
  I can't image that ad blockers or ReVanced has any real impact on YouTube. I'm the only one I know using either. So that's 1 in about 300 maybe?
  - sgc 1y ago
    Locking down Chrome and killing ad blockers is not some huge effort, it's closer to the flick of a wrist. Neither is locking down android. They can just do it. And if they think there is nothing anybody can do about it, they will, to get that last 0.01%. But no doubt they are under an enormous amount of pressure to do this from a variety of corporations and governments as well.
carefulfungi 1y ago
My opinion on this changed as we helped elderly parents with declining capabilities. The internet is an extremely dangerous place for those less cognitively able. It is extremely hard to live without the internet - it's almost impossible - everything from your bank to your doctor to restaurants to the barber that wants to be paid by Venmo. Taking away your parent's internet connection is even harder than taking away their driver license. (And also more isolating.) There is no law enforcement; there's no consequence for scammers; there's no technology stack that is safe for the less able. It's a brutal Wild West where the weakest are attacked without recourse, flooded with misinformation and lies, and targeted by significant financial scams.
- account42 1y ago
  Driving is also extremely dangerous for the less congnitive able, that doesn't mean that we should let BMW decide where and when you are allowed to drive. We also don't trust old people to live on their own, that doesn't mean we force every adult into dormitories.
  - jroblak 1y ago
    Driving is licensed and regulated by the government. Are you suggested internet licenses that required semi-regular tests and strict enforcement by governments?
    - weirdpickles 1y ago
      Interesting choice to cherrypick and then straw man one part of one example. They didn't say the government should get to decide where someone drives; it was the OEM, BMW in their example. That is basically what Google is doing here by locking down a previously open-ish platform. Having a license doesn't mean you are restricted in where you can go unless we start considering the fringes like provisional (learners') permits complete with curfew. Therefore, your example doesn't fit. But OP's does, because it is equivalent to asking "do you think your refrigerator should refuse to cool items manufactured by an entity it doesn't like... to Keep You Safe(tm)?" Maybe you buy from non-verified cottage industry workers at the local farmers market. People who maybe didn't upload their PII and licenses to the refrigerator manufacturer, so it refuses to operate until you remove the offending item. Out of the utmost respect for your safety, of course. Imagine if Charter Communications/Spectrum decided to block you from using their service and modem/routers from accessing any media created by Universal (owned by their rival, Comcast). It doesn't really have anything to do with safety, but they could pearl clutch and blame it on some risqué content that Universal releases via its imprints.
ozim 1y ago
Well of course they are not "doing it for the user" but that would be a different discussion if scams and malware were out of the picture.
lukaslevert 1y ago
Doesn't this kill two birds with one stone? Forcing users to pay for apps rather than install pirated APK's and unlocked apps both raises Google's revenue and reduces the risks of malware and scams. The consequence is naturally, the savvy users who know how to avoid risks lose the ability to have more control over their phone.
- jmholla 1y ago
  This assumes that Google actually does reduce malware and scams within their garden, but they do not. They are just as prevalent (perhaps more so) within the apps that Google certifies. So the only thing it kills is the risks to Google's revenue, not the risks to users' security.

cft 1y ago

Their incentive is even stronger: most users of ReVanced for example unlock YouTube, which belongs to Google. In that case we are talking about 100% revenue loss, not 30% app commission. This goes for NewPipe, etc. I wonder if OsmAnd, Termux, F-Droid would survive this or will be casualties. Who will authenticate for a decentralized open source app that has 100 active contributors?

Belphemur 1y ago
Exactly, especially when Google can revoke your account or keys at anytime. Basically this give Google the way to blacklist any app you release now, in or out the play store for the sake of "security". It's just about control and finally squashing the app that aren't to Google taste.
V__ 1y ago
I can't image that ad blockers or ReVanced has any real impact on YouTube. I'm the only one I know using either. So that's 1 in about 300 maybe?
- sgc 1y ago
  Locking down Chrome and killing ad blockers is not some huge effort, it's closer to the flick of a wrist. Neither is locking down android. They can just do it. And if they think there is nothing anybody can do about it, they will, to get that last 0.01%. But no doubt they are under an enormous amount of pressure to do this from a variety of corporations and governments as well.

carefulfungi 1y ago

My opinion on this changed as we helped elderly parents with declining capabilities. The internet is an extremely dangerous place for those less cognitively able. It is extremely hard to live without the internet - it's almost impossible - everything from your bank to your doctor to restaurants to the barber that wants to be paid by Venmo. Taking away your parent's internet connection is even harder than taking away their driver license. (And also more isolating.) There is no law enforcement; there's no consequence for scammers; there's no technology stack that is safe for the less able. It's a brutal Wild West where the weakest are attacked without recourse, flooded with misinformation and lies, and targeted by significant financial scams.

account42 1y ago
Driving is also extremely dangerous for the less congnitive able, that doesn't mean that we should let BMW decide where and when you are allowed to drive. We also don't trust old people to live on their own, that doesn't mean we force every adult into dormitories.
- jroblak 1y ago
  Driving is licensed and regulated by the government. Are you suggested internet licenses that required semi-regular tests and strict enforcement by governments?
  - weirdpickles 1y ago
    Interesting choice to cherrypick and then straw man one part of one example. They didn't say the government should get to decide where someone drives; it was the OEM, BMW in their example. That is basically what Google is doing here by locking down a previously open-ish platform. Having a license doesn't mean you are restricted in where you can go unless we start considering the fringes like provisional (learners') permits complete with curfew. Therefore, your example doesn't fit. But OP's does, because it is equivalent to asking "do you think your refrigerator should refuse to cool items manufactured by an entity it doesn't like... to Keep You Safe(tm)?" Maybe you buy from non-verified cottage industry workers at the local farmers market. People who maybe didn't upload their PII and licenses to the refrigerator manufacturer, so it refuses to operate until you remove the offending item. Out of the utmost respect for your safety, of course. Imagine if Charter Communications/Spectrum decided to block you from using their service and modem/routers from accessing any media created by Universal (owned by their rival, Comcast). It doesn't really have anything to do with safety, but they could pearl clutch and blame it on some risqué content that Universal releases via its imprints.

ozim 1y ago

Well of course they are not "doing it for the user" but that would be a different discussion if scams and malware were out of the picture.

lukaslevert 1y ago

Doesn't this kill two birds with one stone? Forcing users to pay for apps rather than install pirated APK's and unlocked apps both raises Google's revenue and reduces the risks of malware and scams. The consequence is naturally, the savvy users who know how to avoid risks lose the ability to have more control over their phone.

jmholla 1y ago
This assumes that Google actually does reduce malware and scams within their garden, but they do not. They are just as prevalent (perhaps more so) within the apps that Google certifies. So the only thing it kills is the risks to Google's revenue, not the risks to users' security.