10 ms·

This story with restricting users is a similar one to Manifest V3 in Chromium. But we don't have anything like FF as an alternative to go from Android. Especia

• scotty79 1y ago
  What about GrapheneOS?
  • zx8080 1y ago
    Is it a joke? Have you seen the list of supported devices? https://grapheneos.org/releases https://grapheneos.org/releases (Pixels only)
    • falcor84 1y ago
      Is there anything about GrapheneOS that limits it to only Pixel devices, or was it just a prioritization decision?
      • codethief 1y ago
        https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
      • nunobrito 1y ago
        It is sus as heck and just about everyone in cybersec was complaining about that weird decision. Go for Calyx or any other android distro, they have zero difficulties in supporting more devices.
        • ghgr 1y ago
          Serious question: can you point out some serious complaints? They seem to have an exhaustive justification for their reasons to only support Pixels, see https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
          • ruszki 1y ago
            This list always bugged me. If Pixel - for example - starts to introduce security patches slower, they will change this list... or even ignore it. If something more secure comes into the picture, they will change this list, and they will ditch supporting Pixel. If they don't, then it will be quite obvious, that they formed this list only to meet only Pixel's feature list. Also Google can obviously satisfy this list more easily, than any other company, so basically they created a moot for them.
            • strcat 1y ago
              We haven't removed any requirements from our list. Many things Pixels provide are omitted from the list in order to enable another device to meet our requirements. There are other devices meeting the security feature requirements, but they don't allow us to support them. We're actively working with a major Android OEM towards a subset of their devices meeting these requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. Providing the requirements on our list is not easier for Google and any OEM should be able to make a Snapdragon device meeting these requirements in 2026. It's already possible to meet all the listed requirements via multiple non-Snapdragon SoC platforms, but we'd prefer the upcoming Snapdragon generation with MTE support. The list has been deliberately kept limited to what is provided elsewhere than Pixels so that other devices can meet the requirements, which is in the process of happening.
          • strcat 1y ago
            We would happily support other devices meeting these requirements and have limited what we include in the requirements to enable that. We're actively working with a major OEM towards a subset of their devices meeting these standards and providing official GrapheneOS support. It's not our fault that the only other devices providing the security features we need don't allow GrapheneOS to be installed or to use those features. Massively lowering our standards and using low security hardware missing the basics we depend on and have built major protections around wouldn't make sense. It's not what GrapheneOS exists to provide. People can use LineageOS if they don't have the same priorities we do.
        • hans_castorp 1y ago
          Calyx development has stopped.
          • strcat 1y ago
            It was never a hardened OS in the same space as GrapheneOS. https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm provides a good overview. It was much more similar to LineageOS and various LineageOS-based operating systems.
        • rollcat 1y ago
          GrapheneOS developers are free to set their bar wherever they like it. It's an independent, non-profit foundation, driven by community contributions. They provide a web-based, hands-free installer. They offer their work for free, and owe nothing to anyone. Personally, I wish there was an open/libre device on the market that GrapheneOS could target.
          • fsflover 1y ago
            > Personally, I wish there was an open/libre device on the market that GrapheneOS could target. You mean, Pinephone and Librem 5?
            • rollcat 1y ago
              Let's start with HW secure element and boot chain verification (IMHO the minimum bar that's met by e.g. a 2013 Thinkpad), then work thru the rest of GrapheneOS' checklist. Also: Android. If I didn't need Android/iOS apps, I'd be using a Nokia 3210.
              • fsflover 1y ago
                https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101400 > Also: Android Waydroid can run Android apps.
                • strcat 1y ago
                  > Waydroid can run Android apps. Waydroid has a very outdated fork of Android with the privacy/security model largely disabled. It has poor Android app compatibility. The apps are no longer isolated from each other and the kernel is far less protected from them.
            • strcat 1y ago
              Both of these are closed source hardware with closed source firmware. Neither is an open hardware device. They're extremely far from meeting the official requirements for GrapheneOS. It would not be GrapheneOS with massive portions of the core feature set not provided on top of outdated hardware components and firmware without important updates available. The requirements for GrapheneOS support are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices.
        • hellojesus 1y ago
          Suspicion constantly comes up in this regard, but their site (as linked by another commenter) provides their rationale. The last cellbrite leaks show it as more secure against attacks from le than the current iphones, and that's more important to me than abandoning google hardware.
      • preisschild 1y ago
        Yes. There aren't many Android smartphones that allow you to re-lock the bootloader after installing a custom operating system. Pixels are the only ones officially supporting `avb_custom_key`. https://github.com/chenxiaolong/avbroot/issues/299 https://github.com/chenxiaolong/avbroot/issues/299
  • zx8080 1y ago
    I'm not going to buy Pixel feeding Google further with my pennies just to use GrafeneOS.
    • fzorb 1y ago
      Well you can always buy second hand/refurbished.
      • rollcat 1y ago
        Viability of second-hand still drives market demand, as people have an incentive to buy devices that have resale value. The counter-argument is that otherwise this device will become e-waste. This is still a conundrum, but "don't give your money to Google" remains the active topic here, so...
        • hellojesus 1y ago
          True, but grapheneos only supports Pixels because of the unlocked bootloader and hardware security. If more and more people adopt Pixels solely to install Grapheneos, it may drive other hardware manufacturers to offer a device that meets Grapheneos' requirements, and then they can bank on grabbing almost all of the PixelGrapheneos market share, or at least the fraction which actively wants to avoid google (which I suspect is at least 75%).
          • strcat 1y ago
            We're actively working with a major Android OEM since June 2025 towards a subset of their future devices meeting our requirements. They've been interested in improving their security for a while and have demands for it from large customers including specific requests for GrapheneOS. They saw our posts about us wanting to work with OEMs and reached out to us recently. We previously tried to work with a much smaller company which was a startup and ended up going bankrupt. The current partnership with an OEM is a new thing entirely separate from that and it's not a small company or startup. Our requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. The devices we're working on with this OEM will meet these requirements and provide an alternative to Pixels for GrapheneOS. They may not initially be quite on the same security level as Pixels, but they will provide what's listed there and can get better from there.
• userbinator 1y ago
  The alternative is older versions of Android, from before these hostile changes. The propaganda that it's "unsafe" is just that, propaganda. Perhaps Google will realise once enough of the population refuses to put on the noose.
  • zx8080 1y ago
    It's totally unfeasable for those using stock deviced. Refusing to upgrade takes lots of attention even from experienced users like developers. Regular user just doesn't have any chance to avoid accidentally clicking or intentionally accepting the annoying permanent notification to upgrade OS.
    • userbinator 1y ago
      It's the norm for the huge number of users with devices where there is no newer upgrade available from the original manufacturer. Back when Android was great(tm) there were far more of those than today.
  • saidinesh5 1y ago
    The problem is not the propaganda, it is the businesses restricting the freedom and choices of users because of this propaganda. So many apps even refuse to be installed on older versions of iOS/Android.
    • userbinator 1y ago
      So many apps even refuse to be installed on older versions of iOS/Android. That's because they see older versions of Android decrease in usage so they think it's fine to lock them out and potentially lose customers[1], but they're not going to do that to the majority of them. If the majority stops falling for the propaganda and "upgrading" to a worse experience, other businesses will follow. [1] I have told businesses that changes to their site have made me no longer want to do business with them, and seen responses ranging from complete dismissal to quick reversion.
• yonatan8070 1y ago
  What if we collectively decide to use the web alternatives for banking? We lose some convinience since they are generally desktop oriented, but they don't check who signed my kernel
  • lifthrasiir 1y ago
    Except they did in several countries, typically using activeX.
  • 1gn15 1y ago
    Also, use ATMs if you can instead. Don't use propietary code on your own machine; run it on theirs instead.
    • falcor84 1y ago
      I don't understand the sentiment - how does relinquishing control of the hardware help us? I see a possible future where the banks/governments give the people devices to use for these things, and I don't like this future, as these would surely become spy instruments.
      • p0w3n3d 1y ago
        It sounds like an implementation of the Orwell's 1984 telescreen
      • card_zero 1y ago
        In what way, if supplied by the bank and used only for contacting the bank to do banking, could a device become a spy instrument? Kicking banks off the internet/apps would make Android and Apple less cushy.
        • falcor84 1y ago
          > In what way, if supplied by the bank and used only for contacting the bank to do banking, could a device become a spy instrument? Here's my attempt at future history: Firstly they'll require you to prove your current location, to ensure that the request isn't made by a remote hacker; they'll do this by integrating their own cellular modem, as well as scanning local wi-fi networks. Then, at a second phase, they'll integrate a camera and microphone to perform a face identification, asking you to speak out a particular phrase while performing a particular motion. At the start they'll only require you to turn the mic and camera on during active usage, but eventually they'll say that these have to stay on continuously so that they can ensure that the device wasn't tempered with. And if we aren't careful, we'll accept every single small added requirement, until we're boiled alive.
• Perenti 1y ago
  I don't do banking on my phone. I really don't understand why anyone would. If I can't get to my PC or laptop, I'm probably near an ATM. I've already given so much autonomy to Google/Alphabet/Apple, I won't give them access to my bank account.
  • em-bee 1y ago
    even if you use a computer to do banking, like i do, some banks still require an app for 2FA, or windows... ATMs won't let me send money or do any other kind of maintenance
    • 1gn15 1y ago
      I think this depends on the ATM. OCBC ones do allow sending money digitally. Oh, and you can always send money by withdrawing cash and giving it to the other person physically. Or go to the bank branch, or write a cheque.
      • rollcat 1y ago
        I won't leave my home to type a 20-digit IBAN into an ATM. I won't travel to another city or country just to hand money in cash. I won't travel to a branch to... I have never ever written or received a cheque, what the heck even is a cheque? A piece of paper someone can photo-copy? I used to be able to do all of my banking from a web browser, from any browser/OS I liked. I've had a fob that displayed a 6-digit code rotating every 30s. This used to be simple and secure. What you propose is ludditism.
        • BlueTemplar 1y ago
          Luddism -- in this case going without a smartphone altogether -- is quickly becoming the most reasonable option. You are also quite quick to dismiss cheques as someone that never even tried them...
          • rollcat 1y ago
• Hackbraten 1y ago
  I switched to a Linux smartphone because I've had enough of the duopoly. I also switched banks so I can use my bank card as the 2FA device, similar to CAP. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program
  • russnes 1y ago
    Which one?
    • Hackbraten 1y ago
      It’s a Librem 5. I’m looking for a more powerful model that can also run mainline(-ish) Linux.
      • russnes 1y ago
        Seeing as GrapheneOS appear to be recommended on the newest Pixel models, I wonder if it shouldn't be too difficult to get Arch Linux running on them with the AUR plasma-mobile?
        • nunobrito 1y ago
          Run away from Graphene, it is suspicious at best scenario and dangerous at worst. Just observe that the key factor is to be independent from Google and then the only recommended devices from their side are exactly google devices where nobody here can have an idea of what is modified inside them. You'd be better off supporting other distributions like Calyx, which have no problems in supporting other devices like the fairphone and so on.
          • duesabati 1y ago
            I was very interested in Graphene, do you have other grounds for your suspicions?
• safety1st 1y ago
  I live in Thailand which is very mobile first and the main way to pay for things here is through your banking app, you scan a QR code, it fires up the app and you make a transfer. The convenience is great but increasingly businesses now begin to offer this as the ONLY way to pay. I keep telling people because I'm seeing it begin. This is how it happens, this is the endgame for freedom, democracy and life as you know it. Give the West 20-30 years, it will happen in some developing countries sooner. They will require the approved app to buy and sell. Without it you will be outside the financial system, and maybe will starve. They will require the approved app to only run on the approved operating system. You will have 2-3 options for the approved operating system but total surveillance will be a mandatory feature on all of them. Finally, they will punish you for wrongthink when your surveilled device detects you writing or saying it. As the world gets worse political leaders will become more authoritarian until one finally checks the last box on that list, and that's the end. There will be no escape except for death. All the pieces are coming into place. Every time you hear them talking about better security for XYZ you can see how it's one of the pieces on the board, being moved one square. I don't think there is one guy who has this master plan I think it's the inevitable end state for surveillance capitalism that's as pervasive as ours. I am an atheist, I think the Bible is all fairy tales, and yet the "Mark of the Beast" vibes I get from where the world is going are out of control. The mark on your hand or your forehead that will be required to buy or sell, that was what you'd be forced to accept once the Antichrist took over, or whatever. The 2,000 year old fairy tales were not wrong they are starting to set it up now, you carry the device in your hand, they will do it through payments and banking.
  • stavros 1y ago
    This has been happening for a while. I've seen plenty of card-only shops in the UK and US.
  • hans_castorp 1y ago
    I am curious: how do tourists pay? Will they be forced to install those apps as well without having a bank account in Thailand?
    • 1y ago
• seviu 1y ago
  I don’t need a bank for my daily driver and I can have a backup phone. You can get fairly recent Android devices at a fraction of the cost of a new one. And if you still can, use the website. I also had enough. Switching to Linux pretty soon.
• wafflemaker 1y ago
  Most banks worth their salt accept GrapheneOS. DNB in Norway does for sure. Same for BankID , national electronic identity authorization provider. There are good programmers out there that know their stuff. Find a bank that has a hacker culture like DnB. I remember that I chose them just by comparing uMatrix output between them and SpareBank - the other big player. DNB had no 3rd party trackers showing, while SpareBank had a lot.
  • Sayrus 1y ago
    Same in France, I would have switched to another bank that supports GrapheneOS if mine didn't. In my case, I doubt it's hacker culture but more of a sovereignty and accessibility issue which made them choose to not rely on Play Integrity.
    • uyzstvqs 1y ago
      I use several European banks, GrapheneOS works just fine. FYI, I know that Revolut is a Europe-wide bank which does not use Play integrity. In case anyone needs it. I've only had one non-banking app trigger the "used Play integrity" warning, though that app apparently does not care and still works fine.
      • wafflemaker 1y ago
        ChatGPT app is annoyingly triggering it with every prompt reply. But there is this escooter app in Norway called Ryde, that blocks itself from even being seen on Play Store. They are otherwise very good, excellent support, responded positively to some UI feature requests. They also have a living wage policy for their battery maintenance mechanics. How would I approach them about changing how they verify phones? I'm no dev really and feel like it's a little above me.
        • Sayrus 1y ago
          I'm not sure that's the best answer but GrapheneOS has a page they recommend linking to developer that may be interested in supporting something else than Play Integrity: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
• fluidcruft 1y ago
  Here's what I think Google should do: I really like the Work Profile feature. It essentially sandboxes Work from personal and it adds nice little briefcase badges to mark apps that are in the Work Profile. Another solution might be to to add an optional Uncertified Profile that if turned on allows unregistered apps but sandboxes them and marks them with a "dangerous" badge. That might ensnare these trojans and malicious apps that pose as legit. That might be enough to scare grandma and let people who know what they are doing do what they want. Although, frankly I'd just prefer google just made a "Secure Profile" to keep bank apps and other high-security apps away from everything else.
  • throwaway290 1y ago
    > allows unregistered apps but sandboxes them and marks them with a "dangerous" badge Surely apps are sandboxed on android by default?
    • fluidcruft 1y ago
      To some extent, but permissions are very loose on Android (i.e. broad and difficult to fully think through implications in terms of how apps might interact) and in many cases they are not fine-grained enough. For example, without Work Profile it's difficult to compartmentalize to avoid mixing personal and business files and its difficult to say what apps do behind the scenes (say, PDF or word document viewers try to be "helpful" in ways you don't really want) and other intents.