12 ms·

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have be

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them. My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it's barely usable. The app doesn't run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account. I feel like the conversation we should be having is that we are sleepwalking into a world where to participate in society you must have an account with either apple or google. If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.

dataflow 1y ago
Can you make an argument as to how this is different from having to have an account with, say, your ISP?
- Nextgrid 1y ago
  You have many ISPs to choose from. There are not many "Googles" nor "Apples" to choose from.
  - jader201 1y ago
    Depending on where you live, a lot of times you don’t many to choose from. Maybe 2-3, but sometimes only one with fast enough speeds that it becomes the only option.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      So they are effectively utilities and must be regulated accordingly.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Where? Cellphone providers + Starlink mean there’s more than 3 options in basically every US home.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Even in places without those, there are a ton of little hamlets in BFE around me that have one guy that gets fiber from wherever is cheapest, then runs a point-to-point directional antenna relay system to a home-brew ISP.
    - account42 1y ago
      We're talking about participating in society not Netflix. There are a lot more options for that, including mobile and even good old dial up.
  - tqwhite 1y ago
    I have exactly one to choose from. Two thirds of americans households have exactly two, exactly the same number as the count of googles and apples.
    - marcosdumay 1y ago
      Than your region has a problem that your government should work to fix. Just like the one with Google/Apple. That's not a universal problem though, so random people on the internet won't relate.
    - rahimnathwani 1y ago
      Two thirds of Americans could connect to the internet via: - Starlink - AT&T wireless - T-Mobile wireless - Verizon wireless The choices of fixed ISPs is often more limited (in my area, the physical options are AT&T copper, Xfinity cable, Monkeybrains wireless).
  - christina97 1y ago
    My apartment, smack bang in the middle of Manhattan, has a single coax cable opened by Spectrum, and is the only option for me to get reliable internet connection. I have no choice but to (1) sign whatever their ToS are, (2) pay whatever they want to charge, and (3) have them do what they want with my metadata. I’ve decided it’s not the hill I want to die on, but no, I don’t have many ISPs to choose from.
    - dzikimarian 1y ago
      You have at very least: * Mobile connection, a few carriers * Starlink/Eutelsat It's not perfect, but nowhere near Google/Apple duopoly. Also this is very local US issue, solvable on city level regulation, while smartphones are everywhere.
      - aetherson 1y ago
        You also have the option to move. I mean, that's not ideal, obviously you don't want to have people up and change addresses to deal with a problem with a single company, but if you end up on both Google and Apple's shitlists, there's nowhere you can go to where Schmapple is a third option.
      - cactacea 1y ago
        Starlink in an apartment in the middle of Manhattan? Suggesting Eutelsat is just funny frankly.
        dzikimarian 1y ago
        Eutelsat has pretty reasonable unlimited data package at $75/MO. Might only be available in Europe & Africa though.
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >Might only be available in Europe & Africa though. Yep. We just need to move Manhattan there. Problem solved. It's crazy how some people think there's no solution when the solution is "clear as an unmuddied lake...As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer."[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  Your ISP is an utility, it doesn't hold your de-facto identity. Google and Apple increasingly become the entity required to identify yourself, either directly ("login with Google/Apple to participate") or indirectly ("use our App on iOS/Android to confirm your identity and participate")
- anymouse123456 1y ago
  This question is a non sequitur. No one is arguing for using ISP-hosted accounts as an alternative. The core problem isn't even rooted in identity per se, it's about platform owners actively working to limit access to essential information from platforms they cannot profit from. Even granting the most cherubic motives, this ongoing behavior is atrocious on it's face and should be prevented by any means, including competition, rule making and legislation.
- hansvm 1y ago
  A few points: 1. It's not necessarily different. Your ISP has monopolistic power over you, and it should be regulated more aggressively. 2. A non-mobile ISP is currently much less important than an Apple/Google account for interacting with modern society, and less important than it was even a decade ago. If all 1.5 of my available home ISPs turned evil I could manage just fine without them. 3. Given the relative public perceptions this feels weird to say, but Comcast and their ilk are much less problematic than the Apple/Google monopolies. You can largely just pay for internet (plus an extra 10-40% from scammy business practices) and do whatever you want to do, with the analytics they're selling about you being less invasive than those which Apple/Google use.
- MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
  If ISPs pose a similar problem, that still doesn't minimize the Apple/Google problem.
shawabawa3 1y ago
> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged. Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed
- petre 1y ago
  It's esentially boolean social scoring, just think about it.
- abustamam 1y ago
  Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
  - tomaskafka 1y ago
    That is a great analogy. There are countries where a police can throw you into a lifetime jail with zero option for justice unless you are a famous person from a well known western country. Those countries are North Korea, Iran, Russia, Google and Apple.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Well the US can do it with CBP/ICE, but not for life. I was placed in a jail without being arrested or being accused of a crime and they were very clear at all times I was not even arrested, nor did a federal criminal history search show any record of arrest. No access to lawyer either. US Citizen. Contacted lawyers, all informed me they'd given up trying to sue for these things because it's hopeless.
      - baq 1y ago
        Founding fathers rolling in their graves.
      - 1y ago
sokoloff 1y ago
> I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…” You were not able to served by the standard path, because you couldn’t authenticate yourself via the standard mechanism. You still got service by an alternate path. No different from opting out of the airport scanner; it takes longer and is a little less convenient, but you still get service.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…” Are you under the impression that this wasn't a solved problem for the half-century before "apps?" Yes, there was some tiny fraction of fraud, but it's not like adding all these layers upon layers of technology has fixed anything. The difference is that instead of getting ripped off by one of the people in your own town, anyone anywhere on the planet can rip you off now.
- xandrius 1y ago
  Not sure if you're genuinely asking because there are a dozen proven ways to verify identity or residency either digitally and physically without being locked down to 2 mobile OSes owned and controlled by 2 American companies.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    Exactly, as was demonstrated by GGP's "had to go through to second level support". That seems perfectly reasonable to me, yet seems somehow objectionable to GGP. "Can you believe that I had to prove my identity to the support group in charge of requesting replacement cards in order to get a replacement card?!" "Uh, yeah, that makes total sense; what part of this tale of woe is surprising or interesting?"
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- humodz 1y ago
Drunkfoowl 1y ago
[dead]
guerrilla 1y ago
> I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". This won't work out for you. It just turns into technically being able to, but it being practically impossible. In Sweden (i.e. basically your future), we're already there.
- 0xfaded 1y ago
  What's it like in Sweden? When I lived in Denmark the government had its own e-boks system for mail. I only ever accessed it via web, but I'm sure there's an app as well. Back then everything was authenticated via NemID which defaulted to the option of using codes printed on physical cards sent in the mail. I know they've moved to MitID now. Does anyone know if MitID can be installed on a de-googled device? Apparently there are a couple other options https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/get-started-with-mitid/how-to-use-mitid/mitid-chip/ https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/get-started-with-mitid/how-to-use...
  - guerrilla 1y ago
    In Sweden, we have BankID for one thing. You can't do anything at all without it, including (in many cases) buying things online with your Visa or Mastercard. You can't even do stupid things like look up license plates or other simple tasks. You certainly can't deal very well with the medical system without it. In many cases even mail can be a pain in the ass without it. Then we have another problem. Cashlessness. There are fewer and fewer places that accept cash for payment and even if they do some of them won't have change (since it's so rare that other people are paying in cash). I have a friend now who was cut off from the BankID (and thus cashless) system and it's quite a struggle for him. He has to constantly have other people (i.e. us) do things for him, or drive 40km to one city or another during specific hours to do things (since all the local outlets for everything closed since 99% of people do 99% of everything online now).
    - ddingus 1y ago
      Painful! How does one get shut out? Perhaps a story of his life now could be told to whatever politician may make sense? (I just do not know that for your part of the world) Seems to me there must be some basic government run thing to manage this. Using corporations has too many problems. And you may tell me BankID is government! Hope not.
rkagerer 1y ago
Add "can't participate in society without agreeing to user-hostile Terms of Service clauses, such as indemnities, behavior profiling, and opted-in marketing subscriptions." It's amazing where those dark patterns are cropping up (government services, SPCA, etc).
- amluto 1y ago
  I sometimes contemplate that this sort of incidental ToS should be 100% unenforceable. Here’s what I mean: suppose I want to order a cup of coffee at a cafe. I’ve made a choice to go to that cafe, and it’s at least generally reasonable that the cafe and I should agree to some terms under which they sell me coffee, and those terms should be enforceable. But if the cafe requires me to use an app, and the app requires me to use a Google account, then using the app and the Google account is not actually a choice I made — it’s incidental to my patronage of the cafe. And I think it’s at least interesting to imagine a world in which this usage categorically cannot bind me to any contract with the app vendor or Google. Sure, I should have to obey the law, and Google should have to obey the law, but maybe that should be it. If Google cannot find a way to participate without a contract, then they shouldn't participate. I might even go farther: Google and the app’s participation should be non discriminatory. If the cafe doesn’t want to sell me coffee, fine. But Google should have no right to tell the cafe not to serve me coffee. (For any of this to work well, Google should not be able to incorporate its terms into the terms of the cafe. One way to address this might be to have a rule that third parties like Google cannot assert any sort of claim against an end user arising from that end user’s terms of service with the cafe. If Google thinks I did something wrong (civilly, not criminally) in my use of the app, they would possibly have a claim against the cafe, but neither Google nor the cafe would have a claim against me.)
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >One way to address this might be to have a rule that third parties like Google cannot assert any sort of claim against an end user arising from that end user’s terms of service with the cafe. Or just require retail businesses to accept cash. Which many jurisdictions have done. Problem solved.
bluesign 1y ago
I think it is kind of levels: "can't participate in society without a mobile phone" "can't participate in society without internet" "can't participate in society without google" not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong. because we all accept maybe people not participating without internet.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.
  - bluesign 1y ago
    I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc ) I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are outside of those norms. So it is not so different for bank to require something like google provided software.
    - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
      I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone. The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals. We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejections) on people's lives.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        Isn't this how utilities are regulated?
ivanmontillam 1y ago
If you live outside the US, it's even worse with WhatsApp. If for whatever reason you dislike WhatsApp, you just can't also be a society's functioning member. Some companies have decided to deprecate email and phone support and only have a WhatsApp chat, potentially with AI slop. I've had to discontinue my services with some of these companies because of that. Even some government services are going through WhatsApp; I've had to be there in person, among senior citizens just because of their tech choices. I pretty much vouch for "vote with your wallet," but I am running out of alternatives.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  I never do business with those kind of companies, and it's not any problem in my life. If you can't reach them by email or phone, then they don't get any money.
- ahdanggit 1y ago
  In the Philippines everyone uses Facebook because you can use Messenger for free without data charges.
mothballed 1y ago
I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus. So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a real fucked up situation.
- W3zzy 1y ago
  I work for some local governments in Belgium and with every system they put in place I keep insisting on a analogous version. Online forms? Great but if anyone chooses the should be able to send in a paper form or get assisted by someone who fills in the online form for them.
  - lvspiff 1y ago
    As the spouse of someone blind it's becoming increasingly difficult to get accomodations from doctors and govt things. Surprisingly so much so that even making ada complaints goes nowhere. Very few offices are willing to sit and fill out paperwork nor willing to provide an accessible version. The only saving grace has been be my eyes and other apps that allow for some level of access without needing another human available. It really sucks though as back in the early 2000s strides were being made for the blind community but now it feels like things have regressed because of technology and basic human dignity and kindness has lost out.
- rhines 1y ago
  We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.
  - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
    Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.
phowat 1y ago
Frankly I think it's a lost cause and sadly doesn't make sense to waste energy on it anymore. I eventually abandoned my de-googled phone exactly because I couldn't use my bank with it.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  I don’t use a bank with a phone. What do you do with it? (One exception, I used to scan checks five years ago, but thankfully that finally ended.)
  - monomial 1y ago
    Same. I have a very old iPhone stuck on an old version of iOS that's incompatible with most apps these days. In the rare case I need to deposit a check there are banks like Ally that don't have physical branch locations but still let you deposit checks via their website. I'm curious what people need a bank app for.
    - BtTower 1y ago
      To send your money to someone else.
  - marc_abonce 1y ago
    Some banks require an app for pretty much everything other than retrieving cash from an ATM, because they don't have a web app anymore: 1. Transfer money to another account. The alternative is to waste half a PTO to go to the actual bank (because they only open at working hours) to make that transfer. 2. Make an online payment. Most new cards no longer have a CVV (3 digit code) and instead require you to use the app to get a dynamic number. Many banks do not offer that option in their web app. 3. Forced 2fa for in-person payments with your card. Today it's still possible to workaround many of these issues but they're closing these workarounds little by little.
    - mixmastamyk 1y ago
      Wow, I thought Schwab was bad because they don’t support true fido2 keys. But no website, crikey.
__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
If you think it's bad now, just wait until passkeys are ubiquitous and best practice is to only trust a small list of providers. The only way to prove you're human will be to prove that you're Google's human.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  To an extent, I already saw ads on various fora effectively asking for pretend humans ( you sign up to a list with your info and 'they' use it in your name ). It is going to be another cat and mouse game to track and I am getting tired.
mycall 1y ago
Being disadvantage and not able to own multiple phones for different purposes is a problem.
nilslindemann 1y ago
This is one of the things I wish the EU would intervene. Requiring a smartphone and an app should be illegal for corps of a specific size and for public entities (see school example above/below).
boerseth 1y ago
The danger is when solutions that are convenient, but require giving up some sort of freedom, are made mandatory even for those who would like to stay free. I hope this is a lesson we avoid having to learn the hard way. I have done some backpacking these past two years, and it is worrying how easy it is to get into big trouble if you lose your phone or payment cards. As an example, my debit card got eaten by an ATM on my way to Argentina, and after my 6 month travel, the backup credit card I had brought was about to expire. Despite my card working as a means of payment, I was starting to feel the effects of this corner case in every aspect of modern life. I could not use our equivalent of cashapp, I assume because my card was about to expire. I could not ride public transit, or trains, or do things like book a yoga class with my friends, all because all these institutions basically only let you interact with their service through their apps, where I had no way to pay. I spent some time visiting friends in the capitol on my way home, and tried to sort the situation out with my bank. They thankfully were able to order some new cards to their office, rather than to my home address. But immediately after my talk with them I found that my one remaining card had been cancelled. Then I tried bringing my passport to withdraw some cash, but the bank teller almost laughed at me, before explaining that you can't just do that anymore. The bank isn't even allowed to let you get your money in cash and leave. You can get bits of it in bills at the ATM for a fee the price of a coffee, but also that requires a card, of course. Electronic payment solutions are so convenient, for the public and for institutions, for law enforcement and control, that we've forgotten how much we need to give up in order to use them, and now they're being made mandatory as we trudge along into a cashless society. Now I couldn't even get food or shelter, if not for my friends. I remember half stumbling out of the bank with my passport in my hand, half dizzy with shock and anger. This, along with lots of other small mishaps like losing my phone and encountering trouble, kind of radicalized me on these topics.
Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
This. I really liked Huawei phones and I wanted to keep using them after the US forced them to part with Google, but after doing some research and finding out some of the everyday things I wouldn't be able to do due to not having the Google Play Services (I'm not even talking about not having a Google account!), I just gave up.
- yupyupyups 1y ago
  Huawei isn't much better in terms of user freedom.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  Which everyday things ? At this point we programmers should make our voices heard and make it very clear that people still using platforms, or worse, forcing platforms on others, are collaborating with / are totalitarian extremists. (Yes, this also means those of you still using GitHub, Discord, Reddit, YouTube...)
cratermoon 1y ago
Remember those naive days when everyone was scared about Big Government running their lives? Remember how the Free Market™, unimpeded by government interference, was going to ensure our personal freedoms were never compromised? Good times.
- joquarky 1y ago
  Franchise-Organized Quasi-National Entities (FOQNEs) AKA Peter Thiel's utopia
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  Necessary but not sufficient.
webdoodle 1y ago
I've been phoneless for 5 years, and I've experienced this too. I do have a google account, but I get occasionally locked out of it because I don't participate in 2FA. I fought my bank for nearly 5 months before they provided a code generating dongle to 2fa into there web portal. I had to stop using Amazon and EvilBay for exactly the same reasons.
pdonis 1y ago
To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers). Similarly, if the school is going to have control over your kids, the school should be prohibited by law from requiring you to use an app that's tied to a particular company. They should be required to provide you functional access using any client that supports the appropriate open standards.
- adiabatichottub 1y ago
  You mean like if there were a standard (JSON, XML, whatever) format of document that you could cryptographically sign which would order a transaction to take place? Kind of like a digital teller's slip?
  - pdonis 1y ago
    That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again. In any case, that's not what I was suggesting. I was simply suggesting that banks shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to get access to your money. Similarly, schools shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to take proper care of your kids.
    - adiabatichottub 1y ago
      > That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again. I suppose you could print your public key as a QR code on a piece of paper, or display it on a phone, or use a USB security key device, and physically give it to an authorized employee at a local bank branch. Or if there is a way to electronically open an account you submit it then, along with whatever other proof of identification is deemed acceptable. I think root of trust has been, and always will be, a hard problem. It's just about finding the acceptable level of risk. Security is weaponized inconvenience. Edit: Just to think down that road a little further, I expect the issue exists because the solution chosen by the school/bank/gov't/business will not be the optimal one for users, but the most expedient for the org. They're going to do the lazy thing that works for 80-90%, because there currently is no better alternative that they can implement with minimal effort. If we look at the past we see that postal mail and telephones became standard methods of communication, but you could always walk into an office somewhere and handle business in person. Now that last default is quickly being phased out. So what should be final fallback method of communication? So I see two problems: there is no better way, and there is no required minimum. Both need to be solved.
throwaway31131 1y ago
The main issue is we’re not there today and it’s not obvious what that world looks like. We all had junk drawers of useless charging cables, everyone agreed it was stupid, hence a universal charging connector standard along with the promise that the charger junk drawers will be freed. Even if we mandate the “POSIX of smart phones”, for lack of a better term, what problem today, for everyday users, does it solve? It might even make interactions with various government technology worse as that API will likely only be begrudgingly supported, which won’t win any hearts or minds. Basically until you have a one line slogan that most people can relate to which, and is a problem they have today, movement will be very slow. Also, in the short term, if these various site are AI coded, and thus follow existing software patterns, expect this to get worse.
- ddingus 1y ago
  Give Google and Apple anything they want, in exchange for a reasonable life.
  - throwaway31131 1y ago
    When the majority of people want what you want, democracy is great. When the majority of people don’t want what you want, democracy sucks.
liendolucas 1y ago
Having either Google or Apple should not be an obligation to any human being and governments should do whatever is in their power to allow us to continue operating basic services without them. It should be as simple as that. So all companies that choose the "app" way must also offer a possible equal or better webapp solution for their customers.
Nevermark 1y ago
> "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". Wow. You nailed it. Thank you. When desktop operating systems were dominant, the need for the freedom to control your own software installation was beyond obvious. But now our phones are an even more dominant/necessary computing/communication tool. Apple and Google's appeal to security is such a fig leaf. They can continue to lock down our phones, add even more security. BUT, simply provide a way for users to mindfully bypass that. They could make the pass through screen as scary as they feel they need to. That's it. (If they did that, customer pressure would naturally build over time, for less draconian warnings, as other verifiably/clearly responsible sources became popular. Another benefit. Apple would soon put its considerable resources competing to delivering the most robust security of a more valuable kind. The kind that enforces the walls between unpermissioned/dark behavior without limiting desired behavior and innovation. That would create healthier quality-loyalty based "lock in" that their vertical integration and high focus DNA already gives them advantages to "win".)
rnaarten 1y ago
+1 on this. This is a privacy tie in sale. You buy product x, but after the buy it turns out it only works when you also accept the terms and conditions of product y. Normally tie in sales are illigal, but because it happens in the digital world, we/they fail to notice... Its banks, but also government and health (the dutch digi-d app), food markets, schools, more and more If there is a EU DMA, where is an independent app store?
rsedgwick 1y ago
Thanks. This matters a lot to me. I focus on it from the angle of not owning a smartphone, but it's even more urgent from your perspective. I want businesses to understand that some number of people, in order to avoid toxic behavior patterns involving social media or doom-scrolling, find a dumbphone to be the healthiest choice for themselves. And yet, the places you cannot park your car, the airlines you cannot fly on, the events you cannot attend... all because you don't have an app. I do think the personal mental health angle matters a lot, but it adds urgency to consider school, banking, etc being dependent on private company memberships. My local gym did something wonderful. They retained a keyfob-based access system instead of using an app, specifically because the owner knew "someone's going to have a dumbphone and complain they can't get in."
cyanydeez 1y ago
The only thing protecting you from this is a strong government. Bur if you look around theres a lot of money going into defacing democracy and electing morons, by the same business forces. You aint getting a fundamental freedom by individual contributors, the same way bitcoin is turning into a centralized scam bank.
yibg 1y ago
I also don't like the push towards accounts with google / apple etc or using apps to do everything, or the walled gardens that are the apple and google app stores. To play the devil's advocate though, hasn't this always been the case when new technology gains widespread adoption? e.g. going backwards in time, at some point not having an email address wasn't a big hinderance, nor was not having a phone number etc. Telcos got regulated, maybe that's the next step for google, apple etc.
cnst 1y ago
You can use the majority of the banking apps without a Google Account on an Android through the Aurora Store: * https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/ https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/ I've tried it, it works. With Apple, it's all far worse. On iOS, I've discovered that even some preinstalled premium apps, like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, GarageBand, iMovie, don't work unless you add an Apple Account to the system. But with Android, it's relatively easy to set it up without any accounts, through Chrome, F-Droid, Aurora Store. (And I usually uninstall Chrome after installing F-Droid, too.)
- degamad 1y ago
  For now, but Google wants to take that option away.
  - cnst 1y ago
    Actually, no, they don't quite plan to take that away yet. In this sub-thread, we're talking about installing 3rd-party apps without having an Apple Account or a Google Account as an end-user of the device. What Google has recently proposed to trial next year in just 4 countries, is blocking of unverified apps, but all apps you install from Aurora Store are verified and signed directly through Google, so, they will not be affected. Basically, even if the 2026 trial succeeds, and becomes worldwide in 2027 or later — both huge ifs to start with — as an end user, you could still install F-Droid, Aurora Store, and then any Google Play Store app without providing an ID, as long as F-Droid and/or Aurora Store developers themselves would be willing to undergo the procedure.
    - degamad 1y ago
      Aurora Store and FDroid are not verified apps. In a world where Google is restricting your ability to sideload apps, how likely are they to get verified, or remain verified?
      - cnst 1y ago
        As an Android user, although I'm not too happy about the Sept 2026 upcoming changes, but also the impact is far overstated in these comments over here. First of all, it's simply a trial, a whole year from now, in Sept 2026, and only in 4 mid-sized countries around the world. Second, they'll only be verifying developers, not users. They won't be reviewing the apps any more than they already do today. They already do scan all third-party apps, which is partly why people are upset about the needless doxxing of the devs. Also, as far as I understand it, an app store like F-Droid already does app signing on behalf of other developers, to ensure funny stuff couldn't simply slip through undetected, so, as such, F-Droid probably already "owns" the Aurora Store and all the other apps you can download through the F-Droid app store, so, it would be my expectation that even in those 4 countries in Sept 2026 during the trial, you could still sideload the same apps the same way I do today. In turn, the apps installed by Aurora Store are signed by the Play Store; this ensures that the private data cannot be hijacked through modified updates of the app, since the developer profile won't match. So, there's no concern there, either, since everything is signed. Basically, it's not a good precedent, but at the same time, nothing will really change at least for my own workflow (as a non-publisher), where I don't install anything outside of F-Droid or Aurora Store anyways. Keep in mind, it's still just a trial. And even if it goes worldwide in 2 years in 2027 (which is still a big if), it's still FAR more consumer-friendly than anything Apple has ever allowed on iOS in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.
epolanski 1y ago
Just to point out, while everything you say is true, there are already similar life destroying mechanisms such as getting debanked. A friend of mine owns a hotel in southern Italy, long story short during an investigation into mafia-related businesses his operation was also checked (and fully cleared as 100% unrelated to any wrong business whatsoever, it just ended in a cross examination). Since those examinations involved quite a lot of checking/investigating money trails all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work for their legal, compliance, etc offices, really massive. As banks are privately owned entities they can refuse you services, or simply make your life that miserable that even if they comply with law (e.g. open you an account), they can still deny you any services that they aren't mandated by law of offering (payment processing is a simple one: no credit card processing, you can't work as an hotel) or just be as slow as possible when it comes to everything. There are multiple things that are absolutely life-impacting as of 2025 that go beyond being tied to a handful of operating systems and their rules.
- Hackbraten 1y ago
  > all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work I don’t get this line of reasoning. He certainly didn’t create that massive amount of work. The investigators did. What is this, guilt by association?
anonzzzies 1y ago
We definitely need laws stopping companies from this lock in, especially companies that have no relation with Google/Apple. Countries should demand companies to allow access to their services with a sufficiently modern browser (let's say less than one year old) with a minimum of 3 supported browsers by different providers (so no, not only chrome). Everyone has browsers on laptop, phone etc, so it's the best middle ground.
geokon 1y ago
my personal craziest example in taiwan you can't pay customs dues without a half broken government app this is necessary for ANY shippment from abroad no website, no phone number, no office you can drop into. You can technically file a paper form to some office in taipei, but it made clear its for large commercial import shippments and not "normal people"
Ajedi32 1y ago
I think that may indeed be a less abstract, more understandable way to frame the problem for the public. But regardless of how you frame it the root cause is the same: Why can't you participate in society without an Apple or Google account? Because you need an account with them to install apps on your phone. (Or soon will, with the direction Android is now going.) Why do you need an account with them to install apps on your phone? Because you don't control what code runs on your phone, Google/Apple does. Comprehensively solving the latter problem also solves the former, and I think it's best to tackle problems at their root, not just address symptoms.
evanjrowley 1y ago
Have you tried buying a Windows computer recently? Add Microsoft to your list of companies where it's nearly impossible to go without having a registered account. At least in the western world. It's a different story in other parts of the world. Chinese brands like Beelink and Minisforum still sell Windows 11 PCs that provide you with a local account. That's because their primary market is located in a jurisdiction that has historically allowed PC users to engage in mass piracy without legal consequences, for better or for worse. Old Windows 10 installs are also not going away any time soon. While you can install whatever software you like on a standard Windows 11 PC, the lack of a software signing certificate from Microsoft require users to fight the built in browser, SmartScreen, and Windows Defender before they can run your software. The end result is closer to Apple and Google than people realize.
amelius 1y ago
Maybe the best solution is to get banned by these companies. At least then you have full rights to complain to government websites that require apple/google accounts.
jll29 1y ago
Society needs to kill apps (by refusal to install/use) before apps kill the open Web. Another conversation to be had is the effect of messenger apps to exclude those that do not use them (socially, commercially, and soon politically if governments introduce "ID apps" and force their presence to vote). Each proprietary app creates its own communication silo, and people start not talking over email anymore, which is a fantastic open protocol that excludes no-one. I have been refusing to use WhatsApp for years and out of all people I know, only one friend sends me "VIP vintage" email invitations when everyone else gets things via a Meta-controlled proprietary channel, everyone else ignores people not on these platforms. (Almost even more worrying is what people talk about on these platforms when you do get on there; when accidentally overlooking what a random person on a bus chats about, then I'm happy to have reduced usage of such proprietary platforms over the last couple of years.) Parents should not permit their childrens' data to get onto these platforms under any circumstances (in Europe, GDPR helps).

dataflow 1y ago

Can you make an argument as to how this is different from having to have an account with, say, your ISP?

Nextgrid 1y ago
You have many ISPs to choose from. There are not many "Googles" nor "Apples" to choose from.
- jader201 1y ago
  Depending on where you live, a lot of times you don’t many to choose from. Maybe 2-3, but sometimes only one with fast enough speeds that it becomes the only option.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    So they are effectively utilities and must be regulated accordingly.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Where? Cellphone providers + Starlink mean there’s more than 3 options in basically every US home.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Even in places without those, there are a ton of little hamlets in BFE around me that have one guy that gets fiber from wherever is cheapest, then runs a point-to-point directional antenna relay system to a home-brew ISP.
  - account42 1y ago
    We're talking about participating in society not Netflix. There are a lot more options for that, including mobile and even good old dial up.
- tqwhite 1y ago
  I have exactly one to choose from. Two thirds of americans households have exactly two, exactly the same number as the count of googles and apples.
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    Than your region has a problem that your government should work to fix. Just like the one with Google/Apple. That's not a universal problem though, so random people on the internet won't relate.
  - rahimnathwani 1y ago
    Two thirds of Americans could connect to the internet via: - Starlink - AT&T wireless - T-Mobile wireless - Verizon wireless The choices of fixed ISPs is often more limited (in my area, the physical options are AT&T copper, Xfinity cable, Monkeybrains wireless).
- christina97 1y ago
  My apartment, smack bang in the middle of Manhattan, has a single coax cable opened by Spectrum, and is the only option for me to get reliable internet connection. I have no choice but to (1) sign whatever their ToS are, (2) pay whatever they want to charge, and (3) have them do what they want with my metadata. I’ve decided it’s not the hill I want to die on, but no, I don’t have many ISPs to choose from.
  - dzikimarian 1y ago
    You have at very least: * Mobile connection, a few carriers * Starlink/Eutelsat It's not perfect, but nowhere near Google/Apple duopoly. Also this is very local US issue, solvable on city level regulation, while smartphones are everywhere.
    - aetherson 1y ago
      You also have the option to move. I mean, that's not ideal, obviously you don't want to have people up and change addresses to deal with a problem with a single company, but if you end up on both Google and Apple's shitlists, there's nowhere you can go to where Schmapple is a third option.
    - cactacea 1y ago
      Starlink in an apartment in the middle of Manhattan? Suggesting Eutelsat is just funny frankly.
      - dzikimarian 1y ago
        Eutelsat has pretty reasonable unlimited data package at $75/MO. Might only be available in Europe & Africa though.
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >Might only be available in Europe & Africa though. Yep. We just need to move Manhattan there. Problem solved. It's crazy how some people think there's no solution when the solution is "clear as an unmuddied lake...As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer."[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rickdeckard 1y ago
Your ISP is an utility, it doesn't hold your de-facto identity. Google and Apple increasingly become the entity required to identify yourself, either directly ("login with Google/Apple to participate") or indirectly ("use our App on iOS/Android to confirm your identity and participate")
anymouse123456 1y ago
This question is a non sequitur. No one is arguing for using ISP-hosted accounts as an alternative. The core problem isn't even rooted in identity per se, it's about platform owners actively working to limit access to essential information from platforms they cannot profit from. Even granting the most cherubic motives, this ongoing behavior is atrocious on it's face and should be prevented by any means, including competition, rule making and legislation.
hansvm 1y ago
A few points: 1. It's not necessarily different. Your ISP has monopolistic power over you, and it should be regulated more aggressively. 2. A non-mobile ISP is currently much less important than an Apple/Google account for interacting with modern society, and less important than it was even a decade ago. If all 1.5 of my available home ISPs turned evil I could manage just fine without them. 3. Given the relative public perceptions this feels weird to say, but Comcast and their ilk are much less problematic than the Apple/Google monopolies. You can largely just pay for internet (plus an extra 10-40% from scammy business practices) and do whatever you want to do, with the analytics they're selling about you being less invasive than those which Apple/Google use.
MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
If ISPs pose a similar problem, that still doesn't minimize the Apple/Google problem.

shawabawa3 1y ago

> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged. Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed

petre 1y ago
It's esentially boolean social scoring, just think about it.
abustamam 1y ago
Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
- tomaskafka 1y ago
  That is a great analogy. There are countries where a police can throw you into a lifetime jail with zero option for justice unless you are a famous person from a well known western country. Those countries are North Korea, Iran, Russia, Google and Apple.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Well the US can do it with CBP/ICE, but not for life. I was placed in a jail without being arrested or being accused of a crime and they were very clear at all times I was not even arrested, nor did a federal criminal history search show any record of arrest. No access to lawyer either. US Citizen. Contacted lawyers, all informed me they'd given up trying to sue for these things because it's hopeless.
    - baq 1y ago
      Founding fathers rolling in their graves.
    - 1y ago

sokoloff 1y ago

> I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…” You were not able to served by the standard path, because you couldn’t authenticate yourself via the standard mechanism. You still got service by an alternate path. No different from opting out of the airport scanner; it takes longer and is a little less convenient, but you still get service.

reaperducer 1y ago
What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…” Are you under the impression that this wasn't a solved problem for the half-century before "apps?" Yes, there was some tiny fraction of fraud, but it's not like adding all these layers upon layers of technology has fixed anything. The difference is that instead of getting ripped off by one of the people in your own town, anyone anywhere on the planet can rip you off now.
xandrius 1y ago
Not sure if you're genuinely asking because there are a dozen proven ways to verify identity or residency either digitally and physically without being locked down to 2 mobile OSes owned and controlled by 2 American companies.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  Exactly, as was demonstrated by GGP's "had to go through to second level support". That seems perfectly reasonable to me, yet seems somehow objectionable to GGP. "Can you believe that I had to prove my identity to the support group in charge of requesting replacement cards in order to get a replacement card?!" "Uh, yeah, that makes total sense; what part of this tale of woe is surprising or interesting?"
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
humodz 1y ago

Drunkfoowl 1y ago

[dead]

guerrilla 1y ago

> I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". This won't work out for you. It just turns into technically being able to, but it being practically impossible. In Sweden (i.e. basically your future), we're already there.

0xfaded 1y ago
What's it like in Sweden? When I lived in Denmark the government had its own e-boks system for mail. I only ever accessed it via web, but I'm sure there's an app as well. Back then everything was authenticated via NemID which defaulted to the option of using codes printed on physical cards sent in the mail. I know they've moved to MitID now. Does anyone know if MitID can be installed on a de-googled device? Apparently there are a couple other options https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/get-started-with-mitid/how-to-use-mitid/mitid-chip/ https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/get-started-with-mitid/how-to-use...
- guerrilla 1y ago
  In Sweden, we have BankID for one thing. You can't do anything at all without it, including (in many cases) buying things online with your Visa or Mastercard. You can't even do stupid things like look up license plates or other simple tasks. You certainly can't deal very well with the medical system without it. In many cases even mail can be a pain in the ass without it. Then we have another problem. Cashlessness. There are fewer and fewer places that accept cash for payment and even if they do some of them won't have change (since it's so rare that other people are paying in cash). I have a friend now who was cut off from the BankID (and thus cashless) system and it's quite a struggle for him. He has to constantly have other people (i.e. us) do things for him, or drive 40km to one city or another during specific hours to do things (since all the local outlets for everything closed since 99% of people do 99% of everything online now).
  - ddingus 1y ago
    Painful! How does one get shut out? Perhaps a story of his life now could be told to whatever politician may make sense? (I just do not know that for your part of the world) Seems to me there must be some basic government run thing to manage this. Using corporations has too many problems. And you may tell me BankID is government! Hope not.

rkagerer 1y ago

Add "can't participate in society without agreeing to user-hostile Terms of Service clauses, such as indemnities, behavior profiling, and opted-in marketing subscriptions." It's amazing where those dark patterns are cropping up (government services, SPCA, etc).

amluto 1y ago
I sometimes contemplate that this sort of incidental ToS should be 100% unenforceable. Here’s what I mean: suppose I want to order a cup of coffee at a cafe. I’ve made a choice to go to that cafe, and it’s at least generally reasonable that the cafe and I should agree to some terms under which they sell me coffee, and those terms should be enforceable. But if the cafe requires me to use an app, and the app requires me to use a Google account, then using the app and the Google account is not actually a choice I made — it’s incidental to my patronage of the cafe. And I think it’s at least interesting to imagine a world in which this usage categorically cannot bind me to any contract with the app vendor or Google. Sure, I should have to obey the law, and Google should have to obey the law, but maybe that should be it. If Google cannot find a way to participate without a contract, then they shouldn't participate. I might even go farther: Google and the app’s participation should be non discriminatory. If the cafe doesn’t want to sell me coffee, fine. But Google should have no right to tell the cafe not to serve me coffee. (For any of this to work well, Google should not be able to incorporate its terms into the terms of the cafe. One way to address this might be to have a rule that third parties like Google cannot assert any sort of claim against an end user arising from that end user’s terms of service with the cafe. If Google thinks I did something wrong (civilly, not criminally) in my use of the app, they would possibly have a claim against the cafe, but neither Google nor the cafe would have a claim against me.)
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >One way to address this might be to have a rule that third parties like Google cannot assert any sort of claim against an end user arising from that end user’s terms of service with the cafe. Or just require retail businesses to accept cash. Which many jurisdictions have done. Problem solved.

bluesign 1y ago

I think it is kind of levels: "can't participate in society without a mobile phone" "can't participate in society without internet" "can't participate in society without google" not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong. because we all accept maybe people not participating without internet.

fsflover 1y ago
> not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.
- bluesign 1y ago
  I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc ) I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are outside of those norms. So it is not so different for bank to require something like google provided software.
  - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
    I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone. The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals. We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejections) on people's lives.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      Isn't this how utilities are regulated?

ivanmontillam 1y ago

If you live outside the US, it's even worse with WhatsApp. If for whatever reason you dislike WhatsApp, you just can't also be a society's functioning member. Some companies have decided to deprecate email and phone support and only have a WhatsApp chat, potentially with AI slop. I've had to discontinue my services with some of these companies because of that. Even some government services are going through WhatsApp; I've had to be there in person, among senior citizens just because of their tech choices. I pretty much vouch for "vote with your wallet," but I am running out of alternatives.

carlosjobim 1y ago
I never do business with those kind of companies, and it's not any problem in my life. If you can't reach them by email or phone, then they don't get any money.
ahdanggit 1y ago
In the Philippines everyone uses Facebook because you can use Messenger for free without data charges.

mothballed 1y ago

I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus. So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a real fucked up situation.

W3zzy 1y ago
I work for some local governments in Belgium and with every system they put in place I keep insisting on a analogous version. Online forms? Great but if anyone chooses the should be able to send in a paper form or get assisted by someone who fills in the online form for them.
- lvspiff 1y ago
  As the spouse of someone blind it's becoming increasingly difficult to get accomodations from doctors and govt things. Surprisingly so much so that even making ada complaints goes nowhere. Very few offices are willing to sit and fill out paperwork nor willing to provide an accessible version. The only saving grace has been be my eyes and other apps that allow for some level of access without needing another human available. It really sucks though as back in the early 2000s strides were being made for the blind community but now it feels like things have regressed because of technology and basic human dignity and kindness has lost out.
rhines 1y ago
We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.
- fauigerzigerk 1y ago
  Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.

phowat 1y ago

Frankly I think it's a lost cause and sadly doesn't make sense to waste energy on it anymore. I eventually abandoned my de-googled phone exactly because I couldn't use my bank with it.

mixmastamyk 1y ago
I don’t use a bank with a phone. What do you do with it? (One exception, I used to scan checks five years ago, but thankfully that finally ended.)
- monomial 1y ago
  Same. I have a very old iPhone stuck on an old version of iOS that's incompatible with most apps these days. In the rare case I need to deposit a check there are banks like Ally that don't have physical branch locations but still let you deposit checks via their website. I'm curious what people need a bank app for.
  - BtTower 1y ago
    To send your money to someone else.
- marc_abonce 1y ago
  Some banks require an app for pretty much everything other than retrieving cash from an ATM, because they don't have a web app anymore: 1. Transfer money to another account. The alternative is to waste half a PTO to go to the actual bank (because they only open at working hours) to make that transfer. 2. Make an online payment. Most new cards no longer have a CVV (3 digit code) and instead require you to use the app to get a dynamic number. Many banks do not offer that option in their web app. 3. Forced 2fa for in-person payments with your card. Today it's still possible to workaround many of these issues but they're closing these workarounds little by little.
  - mixmastamyk 1y ago
    Wow, I thought Schwab was bad because they don’t support true fido2 keys. But no website, crikey.

__MatrixMan__ 1y ago

If you think it's bad now, just wait until passkeys are ubiquitous and best practice is to only trust a small list of providers. The only way to prove you're human will be to prove that you're Google's human.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
To an extent, I already saw ads on various fora effectively asking for pretend humans ( you sign up to a list with your info and 'they' use it in your name ). It is going to be another cat and mouse game to track and I am getting tired.

mycall 1y ago

Being disadvantage and not able to own multiple phones for different purposes is a problem.

nilslindemann 1y ago

This is one of the things I wish the EU would intervene. Requiring a smartphone and an app should be illegal for corps of a specific size and for public entities (see school example above/below).

boerseth 1y ago

The danger is when solutions that are convenient, but require giving up some sort of freedom, are made mandatory even for those who would like to stay free. I hope this is a lesson we avoid having to learn the hard way. I have done some backpacking these past two years, and it is worrying how easy it is to get into big trouble if you lose your phone or payment cards. As an example, my debit card got eaten by an ATM on my way to Argentina, and after my 6 month travel, the backup credit card I had brought was about to expire. Despite my card working as a means of payment, I was starting to feel the effects of this corner case in every aspect of modern life. I could not use our equivalent of cashapp, I assume because my card was about to expire. I could not ride public transit, or trains, or do things like book a yoga class with my friends, all because all these institutions basically only let you interact with their service through their apps, where I had no way to pay. I spent some time visiting friends in the capitol on my way home, and tried to sort the situation out with my bank. They thankfully were able to order some new cards to their office, rather than to my home address. But immediately after my talk with them I found that my one remaining card had been cancelled. Then I tried bringing my passport to withdraw some cash, but the bank teller almost laughed at me, before explaining that you can't just do that anymore. The bank isn't even allowed to let you get your money in cash and leave. You can get bits of it in bills at the ATM for a fee the price of a coffee, but also that requires a card, of course. Electronic payment solutions are so convenient, for the public and for institutions, for law enforcement and control, that we've forgotten how much we need to give up in order to use them, and now they're being made mandatory as we trudge along into a cashless society. Now I couldn't even get food or shelter, if not for my friends. I remember half stumbling out of the bank with my passport in my hand, half dizzy with shock and anger. This, along with lots of other small mishaps like losing my phone and encountering trouble, kind of radicalized me on these topics.

Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago

This. I really liked Huawei phones and I wanted to keep using them after the US forced them to part with Google, but after doing some research and finding out some of the everyday things I wouldn't be able to do due to not having the Google Play Services (I'm not even talking about not having a Google account!), I just gave up.

yupyupyups 1y ago
Huawei isn't much better in terms of user freedom.
BlueTemplar 1y ago
Which everyday things ? At this point we programmers should make our voices heard and make it very clear that people still using platforms, or worse, forcing platforms on others, are collaborating with / are totalitarian extremists. (Yes, this also means those of you still using GitHub, Discord, Reddit, YouTube...)

cratermoon 1y ago

Remember those naive days when everyone was scared about Big Government running their lives? Remember how the Free Market™, unimpeded by government interference, was going to ensure our personal freedoms were never compromised? Good times.

joquarky 1y ago
Franchise-Organized Quasi-National Entities (FOQNEs) AKA Peter Thiel's utopia
mixmastamyk 1y ago
Necessary but not sufficient.

webdoodle 1y ago

I've been phoneless for 5 years, and I've experienced this too. I do have a google account, but I get occasionally locked out of it because I don't participate in 2FA. I fought my bank for nearly 5 months before they provided a code generating dongle to 2fa into there web portal. I had to stop using Amazon and EvilBay for exactly the same reasons.

pdonis 1y ago

To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers). Similarly, if the school is going to have control over your kids, the school should be prohibited by law from requiring you to use an app that's tied to a particular company. They should be required to provide you functional access using any client that supports the appropriate open standards.

adiabatichottub 1y ago
You mean like if there were a standard (JSON, XML, whatever) format of document that you could cryptographically sign which would order a transaction to take place? Kind of like a digital teller's slip?
- pdonis 1y ago
  That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again. In any case, that's not what I was suggesting. I was simply suggesting that banks shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to get access to your money. Similarly, schools shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to take proper care of your kids.
  - adiabatichottub 1y ago
    > That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again. I suppose you could print your public key as a QR code on a piece of paper, or display it on a phone, or use a USB security key device, and physically give it to an authorized employee at a local bank branch. Or if there is a way to electronically open an account you submit it then, along with whatever other proof of identification is deemed acceptable. I think root of trust has been, and always will be, a hard problem. It's just about finding the acceptable level of risk. Security is weaponized inconvenience. Edit: Just to think down that road a little further, I expect the issue exists because the solution chosen by the school/bank/gov't/business will not be the optimal one for users, but the most expedient for the org. They're going to do the lazy thing that works for 80-90%, because there currently is no better alternative that they can implement with minimal effort. If we look at the past we see that postal mail and telephones became standard methods of communication, but you could always walk into an office somewhere and handle business in person. Now that last default is quickly being phased out. So what should be final fallback method of communication? So I see two problems: there is no better way, and there is no required minimum. Both need to be solved.

throwaway31131 1y ago

The main issue is we’re not there today and it’s not obvious what that world looks like. We all had junk drawers of useless charging cables, everyone agreed it was stupid, hence a universal charging connector standard along with the promise that the charger junk drawers will be freed. Even if we mandate the “POSIX of smart phones”, for lack of a better term, what problem today, for everyday users, does it solve? It might even make interactions with various government technology worse as that API will likely only be begrudgingly supported, which won’t win any hearts or minds. Basically until you have a one line slogan that most people can relate to which, and is a problem they have today, movement will be very slow. Also, in the short term, if these various site are AI coded, and thus follow existing software patterns, expect this to get worse.

ddingus 1y ago
Give Google and Apple anything they want, in exchange for a reasonable life.
- throwaway31131 1y ago
  When the majority of people want what you want, democracy is great. When the majority of people don’t want what you want, democracy sucks.

liendolucas 1y ago

Having either Google or Apple should not be an obligation to any human being and governments should do whatever is in their power to allow us to continue operating basic services without them. It should be as simple as that. So all companies that choose the "app" way must also offer a possible equal or better webapp solution for their customers.

Nevermark 1y ago

> "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". Wow. You nailed it. Thank you. When desktop operating systems were dominant, the need for the freedom to control your own software installation was beyond obvious. But now our phones are an even more dominant/necessary computing/communication tool. Apple and Google's appeal to security is such a fig leaf. They can continue to lock down our phones, add even more security. BUT, simply provide a way for users to mindfully bypass that. They could make the pass through screen as scary as they feel they need to. That's it. (If they did that, customer pressure would naturally build over time, for less draconian warnings, as other verifiably/clearly responsible sources became popular. Another benefit. Apple would soon put its considerable resources competing to delivering the most robust security of a more valuable kind. The kind that enforces the walls between unpermissioned/dark behavior without limiting desired behavior and innovation. That would create healthier quality-loyalty based "lock in" that their vertical integration and high focus DNA already gives them advantages to "win".)

rnaarten 1y ago

+1 on this. This is a privacy tie in sale. You buy product x, but after the buy it turns out it only works when you also accept the terms and conditions of product y. Normally tie in sales are illigal, but because it happens in the digital world, we/they fail to notice... Its banks, but also government and health (the dutch digi-d app), food markets, schools, more and more If there is a EU DMA, where is an independent app store?

rsedgwick 1y ago

Thanks. This matters a lot to me. I focus on it from the angle of not owning a smartphone, but it's even more urgent from your perspective. I want businesses to understand that some number of people, in order to avoid toxic behavior patterns involving social media or doom-scrolling, find a dumbphone to be the healthiest choice for themselves. And yet, the places you cannot park your car, the airlines you cannot fly on, the events you cannot attend... all because you don't have an app. I do think the personal mental health angle matters a lot, but it adds urgency to consider school, banking, etc being dependent on private company memberships. My local gym did something wonderful. They retained a keyfob-based access system instead of using an app, specifically because the owner knew "someone's going to have a dumbphone and complain they can't get in."

cyanydeez 1y ago

The only thing protecting you from this is a strong government. Bur if you look around theres a lot of money going into defacing democracy and electing morons, by the same business forces. You aint getting a fundamental freedom by individual contributors, the same way bitcoin is turning into a centralized scam bank.

yibg 1y ago

I also don't like the push towards accounts with google / apple etc or using apps to do everything, or the walled gardens that are the apple and google app stores. To play the devil's advocate though, hasn't this always been the case when new technology gains widespread adoption? e.g. going backwards in time, at some point not having an email address wasn't a big hinderance, nor was not having a phone number etc. Telcos got regulated, maybe that's the next step for google, apple etc.

cnst 1y ago

You can use the majority of the banking apps without a Google Account on an Android through the Aurora Store: * https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/ https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/ I've tried it, it works. With Apple, it's all far worse. On iOS, I've discovered that even some preinstalled premium apps, like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, GarageBand, iMovie, don't work unless you add an Apple Account to the system. But with Android, it's relatively easy to set it up without any accounts, through Chrome, F-Droid, Aurora Store. (And I usually uninstall Chrome after installing F-Droid, too.)

degamad 1y ago
For now, but Google wants to take that option away.
- cnst 1y ago
  Actually, no, they don't quite plan to take that away yet. In this sub-thread, we're talking about installing 3rd-party apps without having an Apple Account or a Google Account as an end-user of the device. What Google has recently proposed to trial next year in just 4 countries, is blocking of unverified apps, but all apps you install from Aurora Store are verified and signed directly through Google, so, they will not be affected. Basically, even if the 2026 trial succeeds, and becomes worldwide in 2027 or later — both huge ifs to start with — as an end user, you could still install F-Droid, Aurora Store, and then any Google Play Store app without providing an ID, as long as F-Droid and/or Aurora Store developers themselves would be willing to undergo the procedure.
  - degamad 1y ago
    Aurora Store and FDroid are not verified apps. In a world where Google is restricting your ability to sideload apps, how likely are they to get verified, or remain verified?
    - cnst 1y ago
      As an Android user, although I'm not too happy about the Sept 2026 upcoming changes, but also the impact is far overstated in these comments over here. First of all, it's simply a trial, a whole year from now, in Sept 2026, and only in 4 mid-sized countries around the world. Second, they'll only be verifying developers, not users. They won't be reviewing the apps any more than they already do today. They already do scan all third-party apps, which is partly why people are upset about the needless doxxing of the devs. Also, as far as I understand it, an app store like F-Droid already does app signing on behalf of other developers, to ensure funny stuff couldn't simply slip through undetected, so, as such, F-Droid probably already "owns" the Aurora Store and all the other apps you can download through the F-Droid app store, so, it would be my expectation that even in those 4 countries in Sept 2026 during the trial, you could still sideload the same apps the same way I do today. In turn, the apps installed by Aurora Store are signed by the Play Store; this ensures that the private data cannot be hijacked through modified updates of the app, since the developer profile won't match. So, there's no concern there, either, since everything is signed. Basically, it's not a good precedent, but at the same time, nothing will really change at least for my own workflow (as a non-publisher), where I don't install anything outside of F-Droid or Aurora Store anyways. Keep in mind, it's still just a trial. And even if it goes worldwide in 2 years in 2027 (which is still a big if), it's still FAR more consumer-friendly than anything Apple has ever allowed on iOS in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

epolanski 1y ago

Just to point out, while everything you say is true, there are already similar life destroying mechanisms such as getting debanked. A friend of mine owns a hotel in southern Italy, long story short during an investigation into mafia-related businesses his operation was also checked (and fully cleared as 100% unrelated to any wrong business whatsoever, it just ended in a cross examination). Since those examinations involved quite a lot of checking/investigating money trails all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work for their legal, compliance, etc offices, really massive. As banks are privately owned entities they can refuse you services, or simply make your life that miserable that even if they comply with law (e.g. open you an account), they can still deny you any services that they aren't mandated by law of offering (payment processing is a simple one: no credit card processing, you can't work as an hotel) or just be as slow as possible when it comes to everything. There are multiple things that are absolutely life-impacting as of 2025 that go beyond being tied to a handful of operating systems and their rules.

Hackbraten 1y ago
> all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work I don’t get this line of reasoning. He certainly didn’t create that massive amount of work. The investigators did. What is this, guilt by association?

anonzzzies 1y ago

We definitely need laws stopping companies from this lock in, especially companies that have no relation with Google/Apple. Countries should demand companies to allow access to their services with a sufficiently modern browser (let's say less than one year old) with a minimum of 3 supported browsers by different providers (so no, not only chrome). Everyone has browsers on laptop, phone etc, so it's the best middle ground.

geokon 1y ago

my personal craziest example in taiwan you can't pay customs dues without a half broken government app this is necessary for ANY shippment from abroad no website, no phone number, no office you can drop into. You can technically file a paper form to some office in taipei, but it made clear its for large commercial import shippments and not "normal people"

Ajedi32 1y ago

I think that may indeed be a less abstract, more understandable way to frame the problem for the public. But regardless of how you frame it the root cause is the same: Why can't you participate in society without an Apple or Google account? Because you need an account with them to install apps on your phone. (Or soon will, with the direction Android is now going.) Why do you need an account with them to install apps on your phone? Because you don't control what code runs on your phone, Google/Apple does. Comprehensively solving the latter problem also solves the former, and I think it's best to tackle problems at their root, not just address symptoms.

evanjrowley 1y ago

Have you tried buying a Windows computer recently? Add Microsoft to your list of companies where it's nearly impossible to go without having a registered account. At least in the western world. It's a different story in other parts of the world. Chinese brands like Beelink and Minisforum still sell Windows 11 PCs that provide you with a local account. That's because their primary market is located in a jurisdiction that has historically allowed PC users to engage in mass piracy without legal consequences, for better or for worse. Old Windows 10 installs are also not going away any time soon. While you can install whatever software you like on a standard Windows 11 PC, the lack of a software signing certificate from Microsoft require users to fight the built in browser, SmartScreen, and Windows Defender before they can run your software. The end result is closer to Apple and Google than people realize.

amelius 1y ago

Maybe the best solution is to get banned by these companies. At least then you have full rights to complain to government websites that require apple/google accounts.

jll29 1y ago

Society needs to kill apps (by refusal to install/use) before apps kill the open Web. Another conversation to be had is the effect of messenger apps to exclude those that do not use them (socially, commercially, and soon politically if governments introduce "ID apps" and force their presence to vote). Each proprietary app creates its own communication silo, and people start not talking over email anymore, which is a fantastic open protocol that excludes no-one. I have been refusing to use WhatsApp for years and out of all people I know, only one friend sends me "VIP vintage" email invitations when everyone else gets things via a Meta-controlled proprietary channel, everyone else ignores people not on these platforms. (Almost even more worrying is what people talk about on these platforms when you do get on there; when accidentally overlooking what a random person on a bus chats about, then I'm happy to have reduced usage of such proprietary platforms over the last couple of years.) Parents should not permit their childrens' data to get onto these platforms under any circumstances (in Europe, GDPR helps).