15 ms·

Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install apps now' [video]

565 points by robtherobber 1y ago

_knzv 1y ago
[dead]
loloquwowndueo 1y ago
You paid $1000 for the metal, but the software is licensed and owned by Google. You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.
- fluidcruft 1y ago
  Could you? From what I understand Google is hell-bent on making that difficult nowadays as well. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-356...
  - lawn 1y ago
    GrapheneOS still works fine (support for Pixel 10 will most likely come). What the future holds is unknown however.
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      (deleted)
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - lawn 1y ago
        What's with this annoying and false narrative that it's all over for GrapheneOS? Everything suggests that they will be able to support the new Pixel models. > We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918
      - Klonoar 1y ago
        GrapheneOS project people were literally in comments here in the past month or so indicating they’re in talks with another device maker to have an alternative to the Pixel.
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      Only on specific models
      - subscribed 1y ago
        Currently from 6 to 9a inclusive. 4 and 5 are no longer supported (not covered under normal release channels) but you can still download images under legacy extended support.
        ekianjo 1y ago
        What I mean is, only Pixel phones. That's like a very small part of the whole range of Android devices.
    - randunel 1y ago
      My banking app, my city hall's app and my kids' school app for parents wouldn't work on non-google OS for "security" reasons. Many more national services require an original OS to function, even if I don't personally use them yet https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/38 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android...
      - uallo 1y ago
        Complain to them, give them a bad rating in the Play Store. This is likely caused by using the obsolete SafetyNet Attestation API as outlined here: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
      - codedokode 1y ago
        I never install banking apps (not secure - no second factor, spyware risks) so I don't think it is important to have them. What is important is a phone that no other party can remotely control.
        conradfr 1y ago
        Because your bank doesn't force you to verify yourself on the mobile app to log in on desktop ... yet.
        speckx 1y ago
        Curious. Do you use the bank's website via a browser from a computer? What about in-person banking? Do you go to the bank?
        codedokode 1y ago
        Website from desktop + SMS code is used as a second factor for login and for confirmation of operations. So the attacker would need to hack a desktop to read information and both devices to actually steal money. Or they would need a phone and a card number to login without password. I am surprised why so many people use banking apps on phones. The apps often use SMS or even push notification (because it's cheaper) for confirmation and once you got access to the phone you can do whatever you want. Also banking apps tend to spam users with distracting notifications, and they often require extended rights, for example to scan other apps, to access contact list etc. For example, one of Russian banking apps includes an antivirus. > What about in-person banking? Rarely. Last time I went in-person, I found that the bank switched to a model (don't remember how it's called) where the office looks like a cafe with tables and employees come between them with laptops and there was really long waiting time so I got an impression that they don't want people to come in-person. Although I had some fun overhearing an angry customer complaining that his card was blocked for receiving transfers and immediately withdrawing large sums of money. He wasn't able to explain the source of the money or provide any documents but got a promise that his card would be unblocked. Luckily there are still banks with traditional offices.
    - fluidcruft 1y ago
      If Apple made iOS more customizable (i.e. replacing launchers etc) I wouldn't see a reason to keep with Android. I certainly don't see any reason to replace my Pixel with another Pixel at this point (been fiercely loyal to the Nexus/Pixel line since Nexus S). Hostility is hostility, and when limited to choosing among devices that are a pain in my ass, Pixel no longer has any advantage. Google is converting Pixel into leverage for the rest of their products. Bye.
      - lawn 1y ago
        Why would you move to Apple when you're upset that Google is copying what Apple has done for many years? And even after that, the Apple ecosystem is even more closed down than Android.
        const_cast 1y ago
        Because the android ecosystem and android devices like the Pixel have a lot of disadvantages - we just look past them because of the customizability and openness-ish of android. Of android just becomes iOS but worse, then just use iOS. Currently android is iOS but different. But for many years now it seems Google has been shooting for iOS but worse.
        fluidcruft 1y ago
        Because using Android is always extra friction in my life. I have tolerated it because of the ideals of Pixel and Android (which Google has slowly and deliberately evaporated). Also Apple does a better job at standing up to government bullshit (where Google tends to stay suspiciously silent). So when they are on equal ideological footing, Apple as a consumer product company wins against the Google surveillance apparatus. Basically: Apple is a better Apple if Google wants to turn itself into even more of a pathetic Apple wannabe.
  - ylk 1y ago
    > Android 16 no longer provides device trees for Pixels as part of the Android Open Source Project. It's important to note it doesn't provide those for any other devices. There are no other OEMs providing similar AOSP support. [...] by strcat, Graphene OS founder https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100
    - gruez 1y ago
      AFAIK the impact of that is overblown, because "device trees" are just files that can be extracted from the stock ROMs. Moreover drivers and kernels are still provided by google, albeit in code dump format (no git history).
    - fluidcruft 1y ago
      Yeah, so? Pixel becoming no better than the competition isn't exactly the selling point you hold it out to be.
    - fluidcruft 1y ago
      Way back before I made the jump to a Nexus S, I was maintainer of a CyanogenMod port. Granted there were other challenges involved with that (bypassing locked bootloaders with kernel module exploits) but I am well aware of what's involved. What Google is doing is a fucking waste of people's time for no reason whatsoever. And it's not just on the AOSP front--it's clearly a strategic platform decision. I'm done with Google. On every front they are being assholes. The DOJ should have exploded Microsoft into bits and pieces back in the day the way they handled AT&T so that Google would fear the same.
- yupyupyups 1y ago
  No, people pay for more than just "metal". We pay to access services which society expects us to have access to, a society which is increasingly becoming more unhospitable to those who lack that access. There is no moral obligation on our part to let two large corporations use that against us, by spying on us and robbing us.
  - otterley 1y ago
    > people pay for more than just "metal" Correct. They are paying for the physical device and the license to use the installed software.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    I'm not sure which two large corporations you are referring to, but I'll take a guess. My Samsung phone is not linked to my Google account and I don't have a Samsung account. I have no WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta account. I don't use Apple devices or have an Apple account. Possibly the only apps on my phone that have an account linked with them are Telegram and AnkiDroid.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  Ridiculous argument. You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. Wrapping the bs in a thin veneer or “software” doesn’t magically make it okay.
  - otterley 1y ago
    > You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. Correct. > You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. No. The physical media is transferable and the implied license carries with it. You just can’t make a copy and then retain it if you give the original copy away.
    - johnnienaked 1y ago
      What you are allowed to do is governed by whatever laws are written.
      - otterley 1y ago
        This sounds like agreement. Otherwise I’m not sure what the meaning of this reply is.
        johnnienaked 1y ago
        It means whatever you want it to mean
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - lelandbatey 1y ago
      Ah yes, copyright, where in its furthest future form says "though shall not remeber or recall anything anyone owns unless you pay for it again". I cant wait to pay Disney to remember movies from my childhood once we have a neuralink.
- bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
  Your comment makes it sound like this is reasonable. It is not. This is a complete and total ripoff. Everyone knows it.
  - spacebacon 1y ago
    Everyone knows it’s a complete and total ripoff however people like that with good narratives write the laws all day.
  - loloquwowndueo 1y ago
    Oh I agree it’s entirely unreasonable. But that’s what you signed up for - it’s okay to be angry, I would too, but pretending that’s not what the deal was from the start is pretty naive.
- codedokode 1y ago
  You couldn't - many phones do not support installing third-party OS and do not have public specifications. So your options are either become a product or do not have a phone.
- oh_my_goodness 1y ago
  No matter how dystopian things get, there's always somebody rooting for the dystopifiers.
  - loloquwowndueo 1y ago
    Indeed. But that someone is not me. Screw Google! Just pointing out that the deal with Google is implicit in the piece of metal you bought - and with some phones you have at least the choice of a free system. It’s more of a choice than I have with my iPhone.
    - oh_my_goodness 1y ago
      I totally dig it. Saying it's the consumer's fault is just your unique way of protecting us. Groovy.
- RadiozRadioz 1y ago
  Part of the issue is that phone manufacturers actively make this difficult. Hardly bootloaders are unlocked, barely any drivers are freely available, all the hardware is so tightly intertwined & locked in that you can still brick these things with no recourse (though this has improved). Not to mention 3rd party apps that have built with dependency on Google Play Services which needs to be replaced, banking apps with "security" attestation - using free software on a phone is magnitudes more hostile than doing so on a PC.
- orbital-decay 1y ago
  It's not realistically possible because hardware makers collude with Google and keep their specs secret from anyone who isn't using Google's software. (among a myriad other reasons)
mathiaspoint 1y ago
Don't use smartphones at all, they're only bad for you and you don't need them. Do anything you can to either get away from them or start moving away from them.
- hoppp 1y ago
  I need them for my bank and public transport. It sucks but I am locked in. Its a national security issue for Europe to rely on google or apple but seems politicians don't care
  - gruez 1y ago
    >for my bank You can't access it via browser? Maybe there's a few fintechs that are app-only (think robinhood, at least initially) but it's not like all banks only offer access via smartphones. >public transport ???
    - me_bx 1y ago
      Many banks in EU countries make it mandatory to have their smartphone app installed in order to validate operations clients perform in their web browsers :/
      - mathiaspoint 1y ago
        Sure if you truly need the Android HSM Walmart sells $40 tablets that can run that. You can buy one and keep it in your desk drawer just for banking.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        What do they reply when you tell them you do not own a smartphone? Even if you do own such a device, they don't need to know that.
        Telaneo 1y ago
        They give you a hardware token that spits out some numbers and use that as your second factor instead. Usually after a lot more fiddling than a TOTP app would be. Or they don't and tell you to use a different bank.
latchkey 1y ago
He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone). This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse! Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  The problem was the belief we all had that smartphones would mean phones become computers the way we think of them. In effect fewer people use computers now than used to. They're all online but not empowered the way we had hoped. It's all vice with none of the good parts.
gregorygoc 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bdangubic 1y ago
  so what you are saying here is that Apple "won", yes? They were right since forever and Google is just getting the memo...?
  - tkiolp4 1y ago
    I read it as both Google and Apple are shit. We should stop using their products step by step.
    - bdangubic 1y ago
      what’s the alternative? huawei?! :)
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  That's just stating the obvious because it is a strong reason why Android users chose Android all this time.
- baxuz 1y ago
  Whataboutism. The topic is about Android. And your concern has been addressed in the first 20 seconds of the video.
- codedokode 1y ago
  I don't understand, you like paying $1000 and not being able to install apps?
  - otterley 1y ago
    There are hundreds of thousands of apps in both app stores.
butterlettuce 1y ago
The classic “You will own nothing and be happy”
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Actual ownership is what contributes to happiness. It is the most crucial part that does.
  - bitmasher9 1y ago
    Ownership is one part of happiness, in that it increases physical security.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    This theory predicts a massive happiness gap between renters and homeowners, but I'm unaware of any studies showing this.
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      As someone who has both owned multiple residences and rented multiple residences, I can confirm that ownership brings substantial happiness and renting brings substantial stress. The primary exception is when renting is cheap, but that is no longer the case since raises do not keep up with rents. With ownership, particularly in the absence of a mortgage, one can just choose to not have a job for long stretches, and this is basically impossible when renting unless one is exceedingly wealthy. As such, the clause that a mortgage adds unhappiness is an important one.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        Sure, but that's demonstrably more to do with the actual financial position than the ownership status. If you own the house and no longer pay a mortgage then you're ipso facto wealthier — although you presumably do still pay property tax. During the period of the mortgage, while rent wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be cheaper than the TCO of the house. The overall financial consideration is complex and pro-ownership dogma is just dogma: see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ. More importantly in my opinion, though (and especially for single childless people), rental housing is available in smaller and finer-grained quantities.
codedokode 1y ago
Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  Also not publishing source for drivers should be illegal. There isn't a single legitimate reason not to do that.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    They may say that if they publish the code, other countries will copy it for free.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Let them! Drivers are virtually useless without the associated hardware, and if you're making the hardware, you know how to write a driver for it.
      - rekrsiv 1y ago
        At the end of the day, rationales like this are moot when the final deciding factor will be an envelope full of cash to some politicians.
  - 93po 1y ago
    security through obscurity maybe?
- gruez 1y ago
  >to prevent creating digital waste. Approximately nobody is going to be reprogramming their 8 year old iPhones to "prevent creating digital waste", especially when the CPU is unbearably slow and the batteries are well worn out. Say reprogramming is important for user freedom or whatever, but claiming it's going to make a meaningful difference in reducing e-waste is always going to be a spurious justification.
fidotron 1y ago
I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.). The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  Modem Manager on Linux handles ppp and texting (even MMS if you're willing to build mmsd which isn't easy) with just a USB modem. You don't need a phone at all. All phones have these days is "the app ecosystem" which is designed and optimized just to rent you out to corporations. Exposing yourself to it is almost always a loss.
  - mbac32768 1y ago
    Do you actually carry around a Linux laptop with a USB modem instead of a smartphone? Can you blog about it?
    - mathiaspoint 1y ago
      Yes I do. I don't really maintain a blog but I've been thinking about writing some articles on my personal site about how I have everything set up.
- bapak 1y ago
  The nerds are the minority. If you want hackable machines vote with your wallet and/or with your politicians.
- pharrington 1y ago
  Nope. Its time to have full ownership over our handheld computers.
  - garciasn 1y ago
    There are options out there for you to do this. Hell, build your own. That’s what nerds did long ago. Keep up the same effort today. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
blfr 1y ago
Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones. However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management. The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
- pharrington 1y ago
  Why is it weird? You install software on your computer. You install software from your app repository. You install software with your package manager. You install software on your server. You install software on the computers you administrate. "Sideload" was always the weird, Orwellian term. (editted to add repository and package manager points)
  - blfr 1y ago
    It's weird because "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. You install software with your package manager, from the app repository, and you sideload it with `curl | bash` or manually moving an .exe/.msi/.apk. This is a fine distinction. And it will happen and should happen because there are always gaps. Without a way to fill them, you're left with a subpar experience. And while many people are fine with it on their iPhones, I can't really imagine not having ReVanced apps, Molly, or a dozen other little fixes.
    - gr4vityWall 1y ago
      > "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. Who gets to decide what the main channel is? For a lot of people here, F-Droid is their main way of installing programs on phones.
    - superkuh 1y ago
      It's not a fine distinction. It's orwellian propaganda. Installation is the normal thing that is the status quo. Having a locked down corporation controlled system that only lets you install things they approve should be called some new word. But the only thing coming to mind personally is "dumb" or "willeventuallybackfireonyoustallation".
franktankbank 1y ago
I'm going to be fucking pissed if I can't use AlfaOBD. I've saved myself thousands doing simple repairs which required that interaction.
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
I assume my Galaxy S20 is immune to this because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? Should I get one or two extras?
tananaev 1y ago
I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?
- supportengineer 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vvpan 1y ago
    Yes and no. Yes billionaires are not people to be trusted but also they are a structural problem, a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job. Billionaires are a-holes because the corporate incentive system rewards people like them. We need new structures.
    - jjani 1y ago
      > , a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job This has not always been the case. And still isn't in plenty of locales and companies. The S&P 500 of 2025 doesn't define immutable universal laws.
      - bonoboTP 1y ago
        Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. was in 1919.
        vvpan 1y ago
        I was not aware of that! Basically you can get sued if you are caught prioritizing employees or customers over shareholders?
- 112233 1y ago
  OTOH, it gives more options to implement Cyber Resilience Act requirements, especially once the boundaries get mapped out in real life
noisy_boy 1y ago
I saw a youtube video that the latest Pixel 10 doesn't have a physical sim card slot - only eSIM. Just when I thought the sideloading shit was bad enough.
- pensatoio 1y ago
  Why is eSIM related? I want to understand. To me, SIM cards always seemed ridiculous and pointless.
  - hedora 1y ago
    My cell company locks my physical sim to the phone it is plugged into. If I move the sim, I have to go through similar bullshit as I would if I wanted to move an eSIM (attempts to upsell the plan, charge for the “service” of moving the sim, etc, etc.) At this point, I don’t see any disadvantages for eSIM, since the backported the enshitification to physical sims.
  - Someone1234 1y ago
    I can swap a physical SIM into as many devices as I want, without the involvement of the network. With eSim my provider gives me "permission" to swap it to a new device maximum 3 times per YEAR. This has been spoken about by cellphone reviewers in particular as a huge headache. For another example, Mint Mobile now charges $3 per eSim to swap devices. So now you're paying for something that used to be free, and that is likely a preview of what we have to come.
    - senectus1 1y ago
      i get what you're saying, but you understand that the network you're using isnt yours to use as you like right? They put the network up, you pay to use it in the way they deem appropriate... Dont like it? use a different network.
- dvdgsng 1y ago
  Seems to apply only to 10 and 10pro in USA. Rest of the world gets nano-sim. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-10-no-physical-sim-3586171/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-10-no-physical...
christophilus 1y ago
I’ve been eyeing the FLX1 or Jolla as a replacement for my iPhone. Anyone daily driving those?
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  I lived with a pinephone for a few years. Once you switch over you realize smartphones were never actually nice and it was all just a very clever psychological trick. You kind of stop taking that form factor seriously. You can skip the trouble and just get a UMPC.
  - Seattle3503 1y ago
    what are you using?
rafram 1y ago
Knew it was Rossmann from the title before even clicking. He genuinely always seems so miserable. Does he ever talk about positive things?
- zenonu 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - rafram 1y ago
    That’s a silly response. I don’t think Rossmann is really a force for good. He kvetches about New York incessantly for years, moves to Austin with much fanfare about how much better and more free Texas is, now kvetches incessantly about Austin. When manufacturers don’t open their devices enough, he complains; when they do, he complains. No matter the subject, he is impossible to please.
    - ninjagoo 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - rafram 1y ago
        You don't need to be a pop star to have an opinion on Beyoncé. (And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts!)
        ninjagoo 1y ago
        > And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts! That does count, yes. It also doesn't change the fact that publicly posting such a strong negative view of Rossmann context-free amounts to an ad-hominem, unless you link that negative opinion to a good reason on why his take on Google's harmful actions shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to suppress his views or get people to discount his views. A tactic you're likely familiar with, from being a target of it. Which makes it all the more surprising that you would wield it yourself, against a consumer advocate no less.
quantummagic 1y ago
The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - quantummagic 1y ago
    Not in Canada. People lost access to their bank accounts for donating to the wrong political protest, ie. the trucker convoy. And worldwide, people are losing access to their Paypal banking option, if they transgress Paypal's opinion on good taste. Seems each western country is taking the forefront in one aspect of the destruction of political and social freedom; with the worst, so far, being the UK.
    - tavavex 1y ago
      Canada doesn't have a direct, systematic way of blocking these transactions in the same way how other western countries are building up their systems. Your example was only made possible after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was shortly repealed. Whether using the EA was justified is still hotly debated, but most Ottawans living there at the time would agree that it was. This wasn't just a "wrong political protest", like the government punished people for having the wrong political opinion. Right-wing and far-right protests happen all the time in a political place like Ottawa. The issue here was the scale and the intensity - it was less a defined protest event and more of an attempt to settle in Ottawa for an indeterminate amount of time, complete with harassing locals while demanding accommodation to not freeze in the winter nights. I wouldn't be surprised if those "peaceful protestors" gave a lot of the downtown residents hearing or lung damage. The restrictions that came into effect then seem more like the exception than the rule, the government isn't by default authorized to do whatever. Even in something that had so little support, the pushback against the government's response was considerable. So I wouldn't portray any of it as something systemic or easy to do, like what some other nations are building up in their push towards authoritarianism. I agree that in general the world is moving towards more authoritarianism and control in all facets, but I think Canada is still solidly lagging behind their friends in the UK, US, Australia and some EU countries. We still have no internet censorship authority. There is still hope to push back internet regulation a bit, even though it's obvious it won't last forever. The bills to clamp down will just be reintroduced over and over again until one of them passes. Still, banking bans are unlikely to come anytime soon, unless the people decide to threaten a whole city and the national government by putting on another J6 reenactment.
pharrington 1y ago
This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM. Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
microflash 1y ago
"You'd need our keys to enter your house."
- specproc 1y ago
  I guess this is the thing, they're not our houses. I'm increasingly of the perspective that phones are just a tax, an entry requirement for a hostile society. Spent a week with it uncharged in my drawer recently, that was great, should try that again.
- ksec 1y ago
  It is really wired when I learned a few years ago the landlord has a spare key to my rented flat and could go in whenever he wants. And this sounds like it.
oldpersonintx2 1y ago
[dead]
ayaros 1y ago
Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want. Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway. This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately? The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too. I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
- laweijfmvo 1y ago
  I actually don’t want this, especially for non tech savvy older relatives. Someone calls them and gets them to allow remote access to their PC, easily. Ever heard of the Android UI (bugs) that allowed apps to hijacking dialogs etc? I’d rather they just had a phone where security was the only option.
  - reorder9695 1y ago
    Why not have it so you could choose to have it like that, but also choose to run whatever you want? No reason this is impossible
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Doesn't matter, most malware is on the playstore. Play integrity doesn't protect anything, disallowing side loading has no security benefits. Thats just a lie, a convenient piece of propaganda to convince you to advocate against yourself. There is no security on the play store. Can apps ask for way too many permissions? Yes. Are they open source? No. Are builds reproducible? No. Does Google check the code? No. Is it almost all adware and spyware? Why, yes! Google does not give a flying fuck about the quality of the play store and anyone who disagrees is legitimately delusional. Have we looked at the play store? Seen what's recommended? I mean, for fucks sake you can't download a goddamn calendar app without it asking for phone permissions and showing you popup ads. Look - Google allows malware on the playstore because they have to. They make money off of ads sold on the playstore and advertisments in apps. Google has ZERO incentive to stamp malware. But they have every incentive to prop it up. I don't need Grandma to download an unsigned binary from the internet to compromise her. Get fucking real dude. I call her, ask her to install anydesk, and remote control her device, all Google approved.
pkphilip 1y ago
It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  > It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers… Mobile phones are not, and have never been, general-purpose computers. If you think they're locked down now, you'd be completely astounded to learn what the industry was like pre-iPhone/pre-App Store.
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    I was hacking on firmware for the couple Sony Ericssons I had, replacing major system components like sound drivers with no problems. Installing third-party applications without first asking for permission from your master was normal and expected. They were about as open as current Android is, and probably more so than Android in another five years.
  - pkphilip 1y ago
    What is a "general purpose" computer? who decides what is "general" or not? what can you not do in a mobile phone which you cannot do on a regular desktop / laptop computer? If anything, a mobile phone has MORE capabilities - such as GPS, the gyro etc. So it is a superset of features of a "general" computer like a desktop or a laptop and not a subset of features making it a "non-general" limited computer.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    Openmoko, Nokia N900, Pinephone, Librem 5 enter the chat.
kamranjon 1y ago
What are the implications of this for GrapheneOS? Because it’s based on android, will that project die off?
- slashtab 1y ago
  No, GOS is fine.
- janice1999 1y ago
  They can choose not to enforce it. The problem is that both Google and other phone manufacturers are making custom ROMS more difficult (restricting access to binaries needed to get the phone to work, not providing bootloader unlock etc). The other issue is if governments choose to go after them. Some police services are already trying to equate custom ROMS, and in particular GrapheneOS, with criminal drug-dealing gangs.
  - justoreply 1y ago
    it doesn't matter, if GrapheneOS is going to be the only one to allow "side-loading", then the market for application installable without a store will disappear
th0ma5 1y ago
[flagged]
- quantummagic 1y ago
  Agreed. It's two separate issues though. Someone who did nothing but donate $100 to a cause they believed in, should still not lose access to their bank accounts, without any legal proceedings or recourse.
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    I can be arrested for donating money for any kind of terrorists cause or group, however.
  - ragequittah 1y ago
    I believe they froze assets of the main organizers and people who were actively blocking city streets. After many warnings to discontinue the illegal activity over weeks and weeks. And they could only do it for max a month.
- Levitz 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    [flagged]
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  > Why should people have the freedom to spread diseases? Do you want to bring back leper colonies, then? Should it be illegal to buy eggs from the grocery store while sick with a communicable disease? All kinds of horrific policies can be justified to prevent disease spread.
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    Good point I was too generic, why should people be allowed to spread COVID specifically? Most certainly I can be arrested today for injecting people with dirty needles?
gspr 1y ago
Why, oh why, is there not a smartphone – or even a similar form-factor device without the ability to phone – that lets its user run anything they want (say, a normal Linux distro)? And then you emulate Android whenever you need something that only runs on that? Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap! What am I missing?
- meneton 1y ago
  https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/ https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053872
- Magnusmaster 1y ago
  There is such a smartphone. But then you can't use your bank's app because it uses hardware attestation to ban alternative operating systems, and most banks require the app for 2FA or don't have a functional web portal at all. It's going to be even worse once governments roll out age verification apps that use hardware attestation.
  - gspr 1y ago
    Luckily my bank still allows a fob type device as 2FA. But of course your point is valid. It's a travesty that this behavior is allowed, of course, but as long as it is, I'd keep the cheapest possible regular smartphone around for this purpose alone. I'd try to think of it as an unwieldy fob-like device.
- theearling 1y ago
  Looks like this one does just that, android VM ontop linux: https://furilabs.com/shop/flx1/ https://furilabs.com/shop/flx1/
msarrel 1y ago
I'm pretty sure that this combined with the announcement that in the newer pixel you will only get 200 charges before it starts to decrease the utility of your battery, and only 1,000 charges are guaranteed. So now they've got a platform where you can't install the apps you want and it has a definite end of life. Sounds like they don't even want to be in the handset business.
pengaru 1y ago
What I want is a law requiring support for facilitating owners of programmable computers be able to install their own programs independently. If it's not gate-keeped, there's nothing to do. But if you choose to gatekeep because "security", you've signed up for some work to comply with the law. If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store. This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing. If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights. If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".
whywhywhywhy 1y ago
Timing of this with other privacy and computing/internet freedom pushbacks speaks volumes.
p1mrx 1y ago
The community could work around this problem by creating an open source general purpose app runtime for Android. A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something. We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.
- kleiba 1y ago
  This would be removed from the app store faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
  - p1mrx 1y ago
    It doesn't need to be on the Play store, as long as they allow sideloading apps from known developers. It would be challenging for Google to argue that the app should be banned entirely, as it's basically a web browser with extra APIs, like TCP/UDP sockets.
    - hleszek 1y ago
      They would ban the developer, or its key or whatever and ask him to register again and not do this again. They won't allow any workaround like this to exist because then the whole system has no purpose, they need to have control.
      - p1mrx 1y ago
        I think banning developers just for giving users freedom would be bad for PR. Google would have to admit that they are fighting their own users, not fighting malware.
        bonoboTP 1y ago
hungmung 1y ago
So I paid $1000 for a Pixel 9 Pro 1TB, then Syncthing wasn't able to keep maintaining their android app because of Google, and now Google wants to block me from using F-Droid. Google, you've fucked me in the ass for the last goddamn time, I'm completely de-Googling over this. I refuse to subsidize the surveillance state any longer. Fucking fascists.
solaire_oa 1y ago
As disgusting as this decision is, hopefully it de-emphasizes the idea of mobile apps in general, which (besides CPU heavy apps like video games) are often web-apps with extra steps (React/Ionic/WebView/etc).
aeblyve 1y ago
The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US. Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Why are people using banks only accessible via apps?
  - aeblyve 1y ago
    I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people. Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.
    - jackwilsdon 1y ago
      Monzo in the UK is basically app-only. They have an "emergency" web interface but it only allows read-only access (apart from un-freezing your card) and can only be used if you've used the app in the past 90 days.
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        Then don’t use Monzo? Isn’t it a lot easier to choose one of a dozen banks that aren’t app only.
      - tomatocracy 1y ago
        Chase Bank in the UK has no web interface at all. Same for Virgin credit cards.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
y-c-o-m-b 1y ago
I wonder how feasible it would be to just start using remote desktop apps for connecting to a Linux OS. Until they ban those apps too, of course.
bobajeff 1y ago
Some things to advocate for to counter the direction we've been going in. 1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2) 2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201) 3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws. 4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.
- shkkmo 1y ago
  You got my vote! Too bad there isn't any way to actually vote for this (and that is by design.)
- octoberfranklin 1y ago
  > 4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies. I've given up hope of politically-appointed prosecutors ever doing a thorough and effective job of this. Sure there are some high-profile cases (AT&T, Standard Oil, Microsoft (almost), Google (maybe), etc) but the vast majority go unprosecuted. There are really only two ways to fix the antitrust disaster: 1. Private right of action (like RICO) for the Sherman Act -- let nonprofits and individuals file the charges. This takes the implicit pardon power away from politically-appointed prosecutors. 2. Graduated corporate income tax, which creates a natural diseconomy of scale. The income tax code already contains a decades-old mechanism (search for "common control" in the IRC) to prevent evasion using shell-company shenanighans. It's very well tested, it works, and it has been working since the 1980s -- mainly to prevent US persons from evading the extra requirements for owning controlling interests in foreign corporations.
  - ohashi 1y ago
    I believe there is a private right of action on anti trust. If you're really interested in it, I suggest subscriber to https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ https://www.thebignewsletter.com/
  - Bolwin 1y ago
    Lina Khan was doing pretty good
joshlemer 1y ago
I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.
- nilsherzig 1y ago
  I don’t think so, but it’s getting harder to flash custom ROMs (locked bootloaders) and there are even legislations in planning which would make it illegal (at least in the eu). It’s already cumbersome to run your banking app (and other „required“ apps) on a custom ROM with all the attestation going on. I assume these distributions will bleed users and see a reduction in new ones due to higher entry barriers.
- mayama 1y ago
  Google has delayed releasing pixel 10 sources and unlocking bootloader for new phones is becoming increasingly rare. They may lock it down too going forward.
dmfdmf 1y ago
You don't actually own your phone if ownership implies control over your property. You just get to pay for it. This was always the goal of our corporate/government "partnership" AKA fascism. Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.
profsummergig 1y ago
The canary in the coal mine is that tomorrow Windows or macOS could do the same with PCs.
- killingtime74 1y ago
  It's not the same unless AMD and Intel decide to only let you install windows or Mac OS. You can always install Linux or an older version of windows
  - profsummergig 1y ago
    I don't want to argue with you, but you can always install a non-Google fork of Android on the phone. It's the Google fork of Android OS that this article is about.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
What drives me nuts is: this is for your own good right? I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  This is because nobody makes money when you set your house on fire. Apple makes a ton of money off that app store.
freefaler 1y ago
13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always. However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware. The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software. So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it. Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer. So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  > 13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI Wow, that's in Talks at Google. Listening to the Q&A is just so weird. The audience (I assume Google employees) are openly advocating for digital freedoms and the classic hacker ethos. Crazy how much the Overton window has shifted. I wonder where those people are now.
creer 1y ago
$1000 for a Google phone can be revised. The flagships are now well over $2000.
mig1 1y ago
I know it feels like this might be part of a big plan against sideloading, but from my time at Google, I’d say it’s more likely to be the idea of some exec trying to get a promo.
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  Do you think you were in a position there to hear about any of the actual "big plans" of Google, in case such do exist? Nobody is saying that every last employee who executes on such tasks are "in" on some big secret plan. Also the two are not in conflict. People are getting promoted for things that advance company goals. They are following rational self-interest of the company.
MaxMonteil 1y ago
In a way I hope this gives more opportunities to PWAs or at least websites that consider the use case of getting "installed" (at least added to home screen). It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface. This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing. Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first? People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.
TrianguloY 1y ago
I wonder if a "parent lock" type of measure but for external installs could work, basically allowing a user to disable the external installations (and other things) unless you enter a custom code. For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it. For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first. The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)
moradiyashar8 1y ago
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.telegram.messenger https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.telegram.m...
shirro 1y ago
I can see a fracturing of digital convergence in my future. Corporate controlled communication device in one pocket and an open source SBC in the other. I'm not particularly into the privacy/security stuff. I just think it has all gone too far I'm not sure the value is there anymore as we all get squeezed for profits. I don't need or want most of the shit that companies are pushing. The services I used to find useful like really good search have been destroyed.
qwertox 1y ago
These phones should offer 3 environments: The one which Google likes, where Banking apps and Wallets reside and only verified apps can be installed into, then the normal one, where our all crappy apps run, like weather, whatsapp, and an unrestricted one, where permissions aren't required at all. Though it should be hard to install an app in the unrestricted environment, like force the use of adb for the initial install. Unrestricted should hot have access to anything running in the secure environment.
fsflover 1y ago
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087396
brunoaries 1y ago
Eu aceito

565 points by robtherobber 1y ago

[dead]

You paid $1000 for the metal, but the software is licensed and owned by Google. You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.

fluidcruft 1y ago
Could you? From what I understand Google is hell-bent on making that difficult nowadays as well. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-356...
- lawn 1y ago
  GrapheneOS still works fine (support for Pixel 10 will most likely come). What the future holds is unknown however.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    (deleted)
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - lawn 1y ago
      What's with this annoying and false narrative that it's all over for GrapheneOS? Everything suggests that they will be able to support the new Pixel models. > We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918
    - Klonoar 1y ago
      GrapheneOS project people were literally in comments here in the past month or so indicating they’re in talks with another device maker to have an alternative to the Pixel.
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    Only on specific models
    - subscribed 1y ago
      Currently from 6 to 9a inclusive. 4 and 5 are no longer supported (not covered under normal release channels) but you can still download images under legacy extended support.
      - ekianjo 1y ago
        What I mean is, only Pixel phones. That's like a very small part of the whole range of Android devices.
  - randunel 1y ago
    My banking app, my city hall's app and my kids' school app for parents wouldn't work on non-google OS for "security" reasons. Many more national services require an original OS to function, even if I don't personally use them yet https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/38 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android...
    - uallo 1y ago
      Complain to them, give them a bad rating in the Play Store. This is likely caused by using the obsolete SafetyNet Attestation API as outlined here: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
    - codedokode 1y ago
      I never install banking apps (not secure - no second factor, spyware risks) so I don't think it is important to have them. What is important is a phone that no other party can remotely control.
      - conradfr 1y ago
        Because your bank doesn't force you to verify yourself on the mobile app to log in on desktop ... yet.
      - speckx 1y ago
        Curious. Do you use the bank's website via a browser from a computer? What about in-person banking? Do you go to the bank?
        codedokode 1y ago
        Website from desktop + SMS code is used as a second factor for login and for confirmation of operations. So the attacker would need to hack a desktop to read information and both devices to actually steal money. Or they would need a phone and a card number to login without password. I am surprised why so many people use banking apps on phones. The apps often use SMS or even push notification (because it's cheaper) for confirmation and once you got access to the phone you can do whatever you want. Also banking apps tend to spam users with distracting notifications, and they often require extended rights, for example to scan other apps, to access contact list etc. For example, one of Russian banking apps includes an antivirus. > What about in-person banking? Rarely. Last time I went in-person, I found that the bank switched to a model (don't remember how it's called) where the office looks like a cafe with tables and employees come between them with laptops and there was really long waiting time so I got an impression that they don't want people to come in-person. Although I had some fun overhearing an angry customer complaining that his card was blocked for receiving transfers and immediately withdrawing large sums of money. He wasn't able to explain the source of the money or provide any documents but got a promise that his card would be unblocked. Luckily there are still banks with traditional offices.
  - fluidcruft 1y ago
    If Apple made iOS more customizable (i.e. replacing launchers etc) I wouldn't see a reason to keep with Android. I certainly don't see any reason to replace my Pixel with another Pixel at this point (been fiercely loyal to the Nexus/Pixel line since Nexus S). Hostility is hostility, and when limited to choosing among devices that are a pain in my ass, Pixel no longer has any advantage. Google is converting Pixel into leverage for the rest of their products. Bye.
    - lawn 1y ago
      Why would you move to Apple when you're upset that Google is copying what Apple has done for many years? And even after that, the Apple ecosystem is even more closed down than Android.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Because the android ecosystem and android devices like the Pixel have a lot of disadvantages - we just look past them because of the customizability and openness-ish of android. Of android just becomes iOS but worse, then just use iOS. Currently android is iOS but different. But for many years now it seems Google has been shooting for iOS but worse.
      - fluidcruft 1y ago
        Because using Android is always extra friction in my life. I have tolerated it because of the ideals of Pixel and Android (which Google has slowly and deliberately evaporated). Also Apple does a better job at standing up to government bullshit (where Google tends to stay suspiciously silent). So when they are on equal ideological footing, Apple as a consumer product company wins against the Google surveillance apparatus. Basically: Apple is a better Apple if Google wants to turn itself into even more of a pathetic Apple wannabe.
- ylk 1y ago
  > Android 16 no longer provides device trees for Pixels as part of the Android Open Source Project. It's important to note it doesn't provide those for any other devices. There are no other OEMs providing similar AOSP support. [...] by strcat, Graphene OS founder https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100
  - gruez 1y ago
    AFAIK the impact of that is overblown, because "device trees" are just files that can be extracted from the stock ROMs. Moreover drivers and kernels are still provided by google, albeit in code dump format (no git history).
  - fluidcruft 1y ago
    Yeah, so? Pixel becoming no better than the competition isn't exactly the selling point you hold it out to be.
  - fluidcruft 1y ago
    Way back before I made the jump to a Nexus S, I was maintainer of a CyanogenMod port. Granted there were other challenges involved with that (bypassing locked bootloaders with kernel module exploits) but I am well aware of what's involved. What Google is doing is a fucking waste of people's time for no reason whatsoever. And it's not just on the AOSP front--it's clearly a strategic platform decision. I'm done with Google. On every front they are being assholes. The DOJ should have exploded Microsoft into bits and pieces back in the day the way they handled AT&T so that Google would fear the same.
yupyupyups 1y ago
No, people pay for more than just "metal". We pay to access services which society expects us to have access to, a society which is increasingly becoming more unhospitable to those who lack that access. There is no moral obligation on our part to let two large corporations use that against us, by spying on us and robbing us.
- otterley 1y ago
  > people pay for more than just "metal" Correct. They are paying for the physical device and the license to use the installed software.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  I'm not sure which two large corporations you are referring to, but I'll take a guess. My Samsung phone is not linked to my Google account and I don't have a Samsung account. I have no WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta account. I don't use Apple devices or have an Apple account. Possibly the only apps on my phone that have an account linked with them are Telegram and AnkiDroid.
_aavaa_ 1y ago
Ridiculous argument. You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. Wrapping the bs in a thin veneer or “software” doesn’t magically make it okay.
- otterley 1y ago
  > You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. Correct. > You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. No. The physical media is transferable and the implied license carries with it. You just can’t make a copy and then retain it if you give the original copy away.
  - johnnienaked 1y ago
    What you are allowed to do is governed by whatever laws are written.
    - otterley 1y ago
      This sounds like agreement. Otherwise I’m not sure what the meaning of this reply is.
      - johnnienaked 1y ago
        It means whatever you want it to mean
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - lelandbatey 1y ago
    Ah yes, copyright, where in its furthest future form says "though shall not remeber or recall anything anyone owns unless you pay for it again". I cant wait to pay Disney to remember movies from my childhood once we have a neuralink.
bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
Your comment makes it sound like this is reasonable. It is not. This is a complete and total ripoff. Everyone knows it.
- spacebacon 1y ago
  Everyone knows it’s a complete and total ripoff however people like that with good narratives write the laws all day.
- loloquwowndueo 1y ago
  Oh I agree it’s entirely unreasonable. But that’s what you signed up for - it’s okay to be angry, I would too, but pretending that’s not what the deal was from the start is pretty naive.
codedokode 1y ago
You couldn't - many phones do not support installing third-party OS and do not have public specifications. So your options are either become a product or do not have a phone.
oh_my_goodness 1y ago
No matter how dystopian things get, there's always somebody rooting for the dystopifiers.
- loloquwowndueo 1y ago
  Indeed. But that someone is not me. Screw Google! Just pointing out that the deal with Google is implicit in the piece of metal you bought - and with some phones you have at least the choice of a free system. It’s more of a choice than I have with my iPhone.
  - oh_my_goodness 1y ago
    I totally dig it. Saying it's the consumer's fault is just your unique way of protecting us. Groovy.
RadiozRadioz 1y ago
Part of the issue is that phone manufacturers actively make this difficult. Hardly bootloaders are unlocked, barely any drivers are freely available, all the hardware is so tightly intertwined & locked in that you can still brick these things with no recourse (though this has improved). Not to mention 3rd party apps that have built with dependency on Google Play Services which needs to be replaced, banking apps with "security" attestation - using free software on a phone is magnitudes more hostile than doing so on a PC.
orbital-decay 1y ago
It's not realistically possible because hardware makers collude with Google and keep their specs secret from anyone who isn't using Google's software. (among a myriad other reasons)

mathiaspoint 1y ago

Don't use smartphones at all, they're only bad for you and you don't need them. Do anything you can to either get away from them or start moving away from them.

hoppp 1y ago
I need them for my bank and public transport. It sucks but I am locked in. Its a national security issue for Europe to rely on google or apple but seems politicians don't care
- gruez 1y ago
  >for my bank You can't access it via browser? Maybe there's a few fintechs that are app-only (think robinhood, at least initially) but it's not like all banks only offer access via smartphones. >public transport ???
  - me_bx 1y ago
    Many banks in EU countries make it mandatory to have their smartphone app installed in order to validate operations clients perform in their web browsers :/
    - mathiaspoint 1y ago
      Sure if you truly need the Android HSM Walmart sells $40 tablets that can run that. You can buy one and keep it in your desk drawer just for banking.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      What do they reply when you tell them you do not own a smartphone? Even if you do own such a device, they don't need to know that.
      - Telaneo 1y ago
        They give you a hardware token that spits out some numbers and use that as your second factor instead. Usually after a lot more fiddling than a TOTP app would be. Or they don't and tell you to use a different bank.

latchkey 1y ago

He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone). This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse! Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
The problem was the belief we all had that smartphones would mean phones become computers the way we think of them. In effect fewer people use computers now than used to. They're all online but not empowered the way we had hoped. It's all vice with none of the good parts.

gregorygoc 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bdangubic 1y ago
so what you are saying here is that Apple "won", yes? They were right since forever and Google is just getting the memo...?
- tkiolp4 1y ago
  I read it as both Google and Apple are shit. We should stop using their products step by step.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    what’s the alternative? huawei?! :)
OutOfHere 1y ago
That's just stating the obvious because it is a strong reason why Android users chose Android all this time.
baxuz 1y ago
Whataboutism. The topic is about Android. And your concern has been addressed in the first 20 seconds of the video.
codedokode 1y ago
I don't understand, you like paying $1000 and not being able to install apps?
- otterley 1y ago
  There are hundreds of thousands of apps in both app stores.

butterlettuce 1y ago

The classic “You will own nothing and be happy”

OutOfHere 1y ago
Actual ownership is what contributes to happiness. It is the most crucial part that does.
- bitmasher9 1y ago
  Ownership is one part of happiness, in that it increases physical security.
- zahlman 1y ago
  This theory predicts a massive happiness gap between renters and homeowners, but I'm unaware of any studies showing this.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    As someone who has both owned multiple residences and rented multiple residences, I can confirm that ownership brings substantial happiness and renting brings substantial stress. The primary exception is when renting is cheap, but that is no longer the case since raises do not keep up with rents. With ownership, particularly in the absence of a mortgage, one can just choose to not have a job for long stretches, and this is basically impossible when renting unless one is exceedingly wealthy. As such, the clause that a mortgage adds unhappiness is an important one.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      Sure, but that's demonstrably more to do with the actual financial position than the ownership status. If you own the house and no longer pay a mortgage then you're ipso facto wealthier — although you presumably do still pay property tax. During the period of the mortgage, while rent wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be cheaper than the TCO of the house. The overall financial consideration is complex and pro-ownership dogma is just dogma: see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ. More importantly in my opinion, though (and especially for single childless people), rental housing is available in smaller and finer-grained quantities.

codedokode 1y ago

Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
Also not publishing source for drivers should be illegal. There isn't a single legitimate reason not to do that.
- codedokode 1y ago
  They may say that if they publish the code, other countries will copy it for free.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Let them! Drivers are virtually useless without the associated hardware, and if you're making the hardware, you know how to write a driver for it.
    - rekrsiv 1y ago
      At the end of the day, rationales like this are moot when the final deciding factor will be an envelope full of cash to some politicians.
- 93po 1y ago
  security through obscurity maybe?
gruez 1y ago
>to prevent creating digital waste. Approximately nobody is going to be reprogramming their 8 year old iPhones to "prevent creating digital waste", especially when the CPU is unbearably slow and the batteries are well worn out. Say reprogramming is important for user freedom or whatever, but claiming it's going to make a meaningful difference in reducing e-waste is always going to be a spurious justification.

fidotron 1y ago

I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.). The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
Modem Manager on Linux handles ppp and texting (even MMS if you're willing to build mmsd which isn't easy) with just a USB modem. You don't need a phone at all. All phones have these days is "the app ecosystem" which is designed and optimized just to rent you out to corporations. Exposing yourself to it is almost always a loss.
- mbac32768 1y ago
  Do you actually carry around a Linux laptop with a USB modem instead of a smartphone? Can you blog about it?
  - mathiaspoint 1y ago
    Yes I do. I don't really maintain a blog but I've been thinking about writing some articles on my personal site about how I have everything set up.
bapak 1y ago
The nerds are the minority. If you want hackable machines vote with your wallet and/or with your politicians.
pharrington 1y ago
Nope. Its time to have full ownership over our handheld computers.
- garciasn 1y ago
  There are options out there for you to do this. Hell, build your own. That’s what nerds did long ago. Keep up the same effort today. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

blfr 1y ago

Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones. However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management. The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.

pharrington 1y ago
Why is it weird? You install software on your computer. You install software from your app repository. You install software with your package manager. You install software on your server. You install software on the computers you administrate. "Sideload" was always the weird, Orwellian term. (editted to add repository and package manager points)
- blfr 1y ago
  It's weird because "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. You install software with your package manager, from the app repository, and you sideload it with `curl | bash` or manually moving an .exe/.msi/.apk. This is a fine distinction. And it will happen and should happen because there are always gaps. Without a way to fill them, you're left with a subpar experience. And while many people are fine with it on their iPhones, I can't really imagine not having ReVanced apps, Molly, or a dozen other little fixes.
  - gr4vityWall 1y ago
    > "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. Who gets to decide what the main channel is? For a lot of people here, F-Droid is their main way of installing programs on phones.
  - superkuh 1y ago
    It's not a fine distinction. It's orwellian propaganda. Installation is the normal thing that is the status quo. Having a locked down corporation controlled system that only lets you install things they approve should be called some new word. But the only thing coming to mind personally is "dumb" or "willeventuallybackfireonyoustallation".

franktankbank 1y ago

I'm going to be fucking pissed if I can't use AlfaOBD. I've saved myself thousands doing simple repairs which required that interaction.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

I assume my Galaxy S20 is immune to this because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? Should I get one or two extras?

tananaev 1y ago

I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?

supportengineer 1y ago
[flagged]
- vvpan 1y ago
  Yes and no. Yes billionaires are not people to be trusted but also they are a structural problem, a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job. Billionaires are a-holes because the corporate incentive system rewards people like them. We need new structures.
  - jjani 1y ago
    > , a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job This has not always been the case. And still isn't in plenty of locales and companies. The S&P 500 of 2025 doesn't define immutable universal laws.
    - bonoboTP 1y ago
      Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. was in 1919.
      - vvpan 1y ago
        I was not aware of that! Basically you can get sued if you are caught prioritizing employees or customers over shareholders?
112233 1y ago
OTOH, it gives more options to implement Cyber Resilience Act requirements, especially once the boundaries get mapped out in real life

noisy_boy 1y ago

I saw a youtube video that the latest Pixel 10 doesn't have a physical sim card slot - only eSIM. Just when I thought the sideloading shit was bad enough.

pensatoio 1y ago
Why is eSIM related? I want to understand. To me, SIM cards always seemed ridiculous and pointless.
- hedora 1y ago
  My cell company locks my physical sim to the phone it is plugged into. If I move the sim, I have to go through similar bullshit as I would if I wanted to move an eSIM (attempts to upsell the plan, charge for the “service” of moving the sim, etc, etc.) At this point, I don’t see any disadvantages for eSIM, since the backported the enshitification to physical sims.
- Someone1234 1y ago
  I can swap a physical SIM into as many devices as I want, without the involvement of the network. With eSim my provider gives me "permission" to swap it to a new device maximum 3 times per YEAR. This has been spoken about by cellphone reviewers in particular as a huge headache. For another example, Mint Mobile now charges $3 per eSim to swap devices. So now you're paying for something that used to be free, and that is likely a preview of what we have to come.
  - senectus1 1y ago
    i get what you're saying, but you understand that the network you're using isnt yours to use as you like right? They put the network up, you pay to use it in the way they deem appropriate... Dont like it? use a different network.
dvdgsng 1y ago
Seems to apply only to 10 and 10pro in USA. Rest of the world gets nano-sim. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-10-no-physical-sim-3586171/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-10-no-physical...

christophilus 1y ago

I’ve been eyeing the FLX1 or Jolla as a replacement for my iPhone. Anyone daily driving those?

mathiaspoint 1y ago
I lived with a pinephone for a few years. Once you switch over you realize smartphones were never actually nice and it was all just a very clever psychological trick. You kind of stop taking that form factor seriously. You can skip the trouble and just get a UMPC.
- Seattle3503 1y ago
  what are you using?

rafram 1y ago

Knew it was Rossmann from the title before even clicking. He genuinely always seems so miserable. Does he ever talk about positive things?

zenonu 1y ago
[flagged]
- rafram 1y ago
  That’s a silly response. I don’t think Rossmann is really a force for good. He kvetches about New York incessantly for years, moves to Austin with much fanfare about how much better and more free Texas is, now kvetches incessantly about Austin. When manufacturers don’t open their devices enough, he complains; when they do, he complains. No matter the subject, he is impossible to please.
  - ninjagoo 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - rafram 1y ago
      You don't need to be a pop star to have an opinion on Beyoncé. (And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts!)
      - ninjagoo 1y ago
        > And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts! That does count, yes. It also doesn't change the fact that publicly posting such a strong negative view of Rossmann context-free amounts to an ad-hominem, unless you link that negative opinion to a good reason on why his take on Google's harmful actions shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to suppress his views or get people to discount his views. A tactic you're likely familiar with, from being a target of it. Which makes it all the more surprising that you would wield it yourself, against a consumer advocate no less.

quantummagic 1y ago

The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.

cyanydeez 1y ago
[flagged]
- quantummagic 1y ago
  Not in Canada. People lost access to their bank accounts for donating to the wrong political protest, ie. the trucker convoy. And worldwide, people are losing access to their Paypal banking option, if they transgress Paypal's opinion on good taste. Seems each western country is taking the forefront in one aspect of the destruction of political and social freedom; with the worst, so far, being the UK.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    Canada doesn't have a direct, systematic way of blocking these transactions in the same way how other western countries are building up their systems. Your example was only made possible after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was shortly repealed. Whether using the EA was justified is still hotly debated, but most Ottawans living there at the time would agree that it was. This wasn't just a "wrong political protest", like the government punished people for having the wrong political opinion. Right-wing and far-right protests happen all the time in a political place like Ottawa. The issue here was the scale and the intensity - it was less a defined protest event and more of an attempt to settle in Ottawa for an indeterminate amount of time, complete with harassing locals while demanding accommodation to not freeze in the winter nights. I wouldn't be surprised if those "peaceful protestors" gave a lot of the downtown residents hearing or lung damage. The restrictions that came into effect then seem more like the exception than the rule, the government isn't by default authorized to do whatever. Even in something that had so little support, the pushback against the government's response was considerable. So I wouldn't portray any of it as something systemic or easy to do, like what some other nations are building up in their push towards authoritarianism. I agree that in general the world is moving towards more authoritarianism and control in all facets, but I think Canada is still solidly lagging behind their friends in the UK, US, Australia and some EU countries. We still have no internet censorship authority. There is still hope to push back internet regulation a bit, even though it's obvious it won't last forever. The bills to clamp down will just be reintroduced over and over again until one of them passes. Still, banking bans are unlikely to come anytime soon, unless the people decide to threaten a whole city and the national government by putting on another J6 reenactment.

pharrington 1y ago

This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM. Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.

microflash 1y ago

"You'd need our keys to enter your house."

specproc 1y ago
I guess this is the thing, they're not our houses. I'm increasingly of the perspective that phones are just a tax, an entry requirement for a hostile society. Spent a week with it uncharged in my drawer recently, that was great, should try that again.
ksec 1y ago
It is really wired when I learned a few years ago the landlord has a spare key to my rented flat and could go in whenever he wants. And this sounds like it.

oldpersonintx2 1y ago

[dead]

ayaros 1y ago

Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want. Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway. This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately? The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too. I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.

laweijfmvo 1y ago
I actually don’t want this, especially for non tech savvy older relatives. Someone calls them and gets them to allow remote access to their PC, easily. Ever heard of the Android UI (bugs) that allowed apps to hijacking dialogs etc? I’d rather they just had a phone where security was the only option.
- reorder9695 1y ago
  Why not have it so you could choose to have it like that, but also choose to run whatever you want? No reason this is impossible
- const_cast 1y ago
  Doesn't matter, most malware is on the playstore. Play integrity doesn't protect anything, disallowing side loading has no security benefits. Thats just a lie, a convenient piece of propaganda to convince you to advocate against yourself. There is no security on the play store. Can apps ask for way too many permissions? Yes. Are they open source? No. Are builds reproducible? No. Does Google check the code? No. Is it almost all adware and spyware? Why, yes! Google does not give a flying fuck about the quality of the play store and anyone who disagrees is legitimately delusional. Have we looked at the play store? Seen what's recommended? I mean, for fucks sake you can't download a goddamn calendar app without it asking for phone permissions and showing you popup ads. Look - Google allows malware on the playstore because they have to. They make money off of ads sold on the playstore and advertisments in apps. Google has ZERO incentive to stamp malware. But they have every incentive to prop it up. I don't need Grandma to download an unsigned binary from the internet to compromise her. Get fucking real dude. I call her, ask her to install anydesk, and remote control her device, all Google approved.

pkphilip 1y ago

It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.

CharlesW 1y ago
> It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers… Mobile phones are not, and have never been, general-purpose computers. If you think they're locked down now, you'd be completely astounded to learn what the industry was like pre-iPhone/pre-App Store.
- homebrewer 1y ago
  I was hacking on firmware for the couple Sony Ericssons I had, replacing major system components like sound drivers with no problems. Installing third-party applications without first asking for permission from your master was normal and expected. They were about as open as current Android is, and probably more so than Android in another five years.
- pkphilip 1y ago
  What is a "general purpose" computer? who decides what is "general" or not? what can you not do in a mobile phone which you cannot do on a regular desktop / laptop computer? If anything, a mobile phone has MORE capabilities - such as GPS, the gyro etc. So it is a superset of features of a "general" computer like a desktop or a laptop and not a subset of features making it a "non-general" limited computer.
- fsflover 1y ago
  Openmoko, Nokia N900, Pinephone, Librem 5 enter the chat.

kamranjon 1y ago

What are the implications of this for GrapheneOS? Because it’s based on android, will that project die off?

slashtab 1y ago
No, GOS is fine.
janice1999 1y ago
They can choose not to enforce it. The problem is that both Google and other phone manufacturers are making custom ROMS more difficult (restricting access to binaries needed to get the phone to work, not providing bootloader unlock etc). The other issue is if governments choose to go after them. Some police services are already trying to equate custom ROMS, and in particular GrapheneOS, with criminal drug-dealing gangs.
- justoreply 1y ago
  it doesn't matter, if GrapheneOS is going to be the only one to allow "side-loading", then the market for application installable without a store will disappear

th0ma5 1y ago

[flagged]

quantummagic 1y ago
Agreed. It's two separate issues though. Someone who did nothing but donate $100 to a cause they believed in, should still not lose access to their bank accounts, without any legal proceedings or recourse.
- th0ma5 1y ago
  I can be arrested for donating money for any kind of terrorists cause or group, however.
- ragequittah 1y ago
  I believe they froze assets of the main organizers and people who were actively blocking city streets. After many warnings to discontinue the illegal activity over weeks and weeks. And they could only do it for max a month.
Levitz 1y ago
[flagged]
- th0ma5 1y ago
  [flagged]
tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
> Why should people have the freedom to spread diseases? Do you want to bring back leper colonies, then? Should it be illegal to buy eggs from the grocery store while sick with a communicable disease? All kinds of horrific policies can be justified to prevent disease spread.
- th0ma5 1y ago
  Good point I was too generic, why should people be allowed to spread COVID specifically? Most certainly I can be arrested today for injecting people with dirty needles?

gspr 1y ago

Why, oh why, is there not a smartphone – or even a similar form-factor device without the ability to phone – that lets its user run anything they want (say, a normal Linux distro)? And then you emulate Android whenever you need something that only runs on that? Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap! What am I missing?

meneton 1y ago
https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/ https://pine64.org/devices/pinephone/
- Telaneo 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053872
Magnusmaster 1y ago
There is such a smartphone. But then you can't use your bank's app because it uses hardware attestation to ban alternative operating systems, and most banks require the app for 2FA or don't have a functional web portal at all. It's going to be even worse once governments roll out age verification apps that use hardware attestation.
- gspr 1y ago
  Luckily my bank still allows a fob type device as 2FA. But of course your point is valid. It's a travesty that this behavior is allowed, of course, but as long as it is, I'd keep the cheapest possible regular smartphone around for this purpose alone. I'd try to think of it as an unwieldy fob-like device.
theearling 1y ago
Looks like this one does just that, android VM ontop linux: https://furilabs.com/shop/flx1/ https://furilabs.com/shop/flx1/

msarrel 1y ago

I'm pretty sure that this combined with the announcement that in the newer pixel you will only get 200 charges before it starts to decrease the utility of your battery, and only 1,000 charges are guaranteed. So now they've got a platform where you can't install the apps you want and it has a definite end of life. Sounds like they don't even want to be in the handset business.

pengaru 1y ago

What I want is a law requiring support for facilitating owners of programmable computers be able to install their own programs independently. If it's not gate-keeped, there's nothing to do. But if you choose to gatekeep because "security", you've signed up for some work to comply with the law. If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store. This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing. If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights. If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".

whywhywhywhy 1y ago

Timing of this with other privacy and computing/internet freedom pushbacks speaks volumes.

p1mrx 1y ago

The community could work around this problem by creating an open source general purpose app runtime for Android. A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something. We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.

kleiba 1y ago
This would be removed from the app store faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
- p1mrx 1y ago
  It doesn't need to be on the Play store, as long as they allow sideloading apps from known developers. It would be challenging for Google to argue that the app should be banned entirely, as it's basically a web browser with extra APIs, like TCP/UDP sockets.
  - hleszek 1y ago
    They would ban the developer, or its key or whatever and ask him to register again and not do this again. They won't allow any workaround like this to exist because then the whole system has no purpose, they need to have control.
    - p1mrx 1y ago
      I think banning developers just for giving users freedom would be bad for PR. Google would have to admit that they are fighting their own users, not fighting malware.
      - bonoboTP 1y ago

hungmung 1y ago

So I paid $1000 for a Pixel 9 Pro 1TB, then Syncthing wasn't able to keep maintaining their android app because of Google, and now Google wants to block me from using F-Droid. Google, you've fucked me in the ass for the last goddamn time, I'm completely de-Googling over this. I refuse to subsidize the surveillance state any longer. Fucking fascists.

solaire_oa 1y ago

As disgusting as this decision is, hopefully it de-emphasizes the idea of mobile apps in general, which (besides CPU heavy apps like video games) are often web-apps with extra steps (React/Ionic/WebView/etc).

aeblyve 1y ago

The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US. Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).

scarface_74 1y ago
Why are people using banks only accessible via apps?
- aeblyve 1y ago
  I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people. Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.
  - jackwilsdon 1y ago
    Monzo in the UK is basically app-only. They have an "emergency" web interface but it only allows read-only access (apart from un-freezing your card) and can only be used if you've used the app in the past 90 days.
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      Then don’t use Monzo? Isn’t it a lot easier to choose one of a dozen banks that aren’t app only.
    - tomatocracy 1y ago
      Chase Bank in the UK has no web interface at all. Same for Virgin credit cards.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

y-c-o-m-b 1y ago

I wonder how feasible it would be to just start using remote desktop apps for connecting to a Linux OS. Until they ban those apps too, of course.

bobajeff 1y ago

Some things to advocate for to counter the direction we've been going in. 1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2) 2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201) 3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws. 4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.

shkkmo 1y ago
You got my vote! Too bad there isn't any way to actually vote for this (and that is by design.)
octoberfranklin 1y ago
> 4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies. I've given up hope of politically-appointed prosecutors ever doing a thorough and effective job of this. Sure there are some high-profile cases (AT&T, Standard Oil, Microsoft (almost), Google (maybe), etc) but the vast majority go unprosecuted. There are really only two ways to fix the antitrust disaster: 1. Private right of action (like RICO) for the Sherman Act -- let nonprofits and individuals file the charges. This takes the implicit pardon power away from politically-appointed prosecutors. 2. Graduated corporate income tax, which creates a natural diseconomy of scale. The income tax code already contains a decades-old mechanism (search for "common control" in the IRC) to prevent evasion using shell-company shenanighans. It's very well tested, it works, and it has been working since the 1980s -- mainly to prevent US persons from evading the extra requirements for owning controlling interests in foreign corporations.
- ohashi 1y ago
  I believe there is a private right of action on anti trust. If you're really interested in it, I suggest subscriber to https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ https://www.thebignewsletter.com/
- Bolwin 1y ago
  Lina Khan was doing pretty good

joshlemer 1y ago

I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.

nilsherzig 1y ago
I don’t think so, but it’s getting harder to flash custom ROMs (locked bootloaders) and there are even legislations in planning which would make it illegal (at least in the eu). It’s already cumbersome to run your banking app (and other „required“ apps) on a custom ROM with all the attestation going on. I assume these distributions will bleed users and see a reduction in new ones due to higher entry barriers.
mayama 1y ago
Google has delayed releasing pixel 10 sources and unlocking bootloader for new phones is becoming increasingly rare. They may lock it down too going forward.

dmfdmf 1y ago

You don't actually own your phone if ownership implies control over your property. You just get to pay for it. This was always the goal of our corporate/government "partnership" AKA fascism. Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.

profsummergig 1y ago

The canary in the coal mine is that tomorrow Windows or macOS could do the same with PCs.

killingtime74 1y ago
It's not the same unless AMD and Intel decide to only let you install windows or Mac OS. You can always install Linux or an older version of windows
- profsummergig 1y ago
  I don't want to argue with you, but you can always install a non-Google fork of Android on the phone. It's the Google fork of Android OS that this article is about.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago

What drives me nuts is: this is for your own good right? I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.

wkat4242 1y ago
This is because nobody makes money when you set your house on fire. Apple makes a ton of money off that app store.

freefaler 1y ago

13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always. However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware. The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software. So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it. Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer. So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.

bonoboTP 1y ago
> 13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI Wow, that's in Talks at Google. Listening to the Q&A is just so weird. The audience (I assume Google employees) are openly advocating for digital freedoms and the classic hacker ethos. Crazy how much the Overton window has shifted. I wonder where those people are now.

creer 1y ago

$1000 for a Google phone can be revised. The flagships are now well over $2000.

mig1 1y ago

I know it feels like this might be part of a big plan against sideloading, but from my time at Google, I’d say it’s more likely to be the idea of some exec trying to get a promo.

bonoboTP 1y ago
Do you think you were in a position there to hear about any of the actual "big plans" of Google, in case such do exist? Nobody is saying that every last employee who executes on such tasks are "in" on some big secret plan. Also the two are not in conflict. People are getting promoted for things that advance company goals. They are following rational self-interest of the company.

MaxMonteil 1y ago

In a way I hope this gives more opportunities to PWAs or at least websites that consider the use case of getting "installed" (at least added to home screen). It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface. This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing. Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first? People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.

TrianguloY 1y ago

I wonder if a "parent lock" type of measure but for external installs could work, basically allowing a user to disable the external installations (and other things) unless you enter a custom code. For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it. For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first. The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)

moradiyashar8 1y ago

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.telegram.messenger https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.telegram.m...

shirro 1y ago

I can see a fracturing of digital convergence in my future. Corporate controlled communication device in one pocket and an open source SBC in the other. I'm not particularly into the privacy/security stuff. I just think it has all gone too far I'm not sure the value is there anymore as we all get squeezed for profits. I don't need or want most of the shit that companies are pushing. The services I used to find useful like really good search have been destroyed.

qwertox 1y ago

These phones should offer 3 environments: The one which Google likes, where Banking apps and Wallets reside and only verified apps can be installed into, then the normal one, where our all crappy apps run, like weather, whatsapp, and an unrestricted one, where permissions aren't required at all. Though it should be hard to install an app in the unrestricted environment, like force the use of adb for the initial install. Unrestricted should hot have access to anything running in the secure environment.

fsflover 1y ago

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087396

brunoaries 1y ago

Eu aceito