10 ms·
Google's requirement for developers to be verified threatens app store F-Droid
- jmclnx 1y agoThe ability to install what I want is one of the reasons I went with Android, I guess I will have to look elsewhere when I next need a phone. I am hoping the new GNU Phone or Linux Phone get to be "thing". edit: fixed spelling
- exe34 1y agoI'll probably have an android phone in my bag for emergencies and use some kind of offline Linux phone for my mobile computing needs. or even give up on the mobile form factor for general use.
- amelius 1y agoIt could be, if all FOSS developers slapped a new license on their projects saying "not for Android/iOS".
- john01dav 1y agoThis would make it no longer free software as per the FSF's definition. We could turn many more things into GPLv3, which would prevent this, however. Then, Android and iOS can use them if and only if they go under GPLv3 too, which includes provisions against bootloader locking.
- amelius 1y agoI think we need something in between. Permissive for individuals and small companies, but restrictive for mega corporations who impose their will on the populace.
- beanjuiceII 1y agosounds like corporations would no longer have a need to open source anything
- amelius 1y agoIt can go two ways. Either corporations work with their users, or they work against them.
- john01dav 1y agoThe closest that I know of to this is GPLv3 with sold proprietary licenses. Then, when selling proprietary licenses, you can adjust the price to what you think that the customer can afford. There's debate on how ethical such adjustment is, and many companies (recently Slack and often Cloudflare) are criticized for it.
- amelius 1y agoYou can certainly say it is ethical depending on your political views. Large companies have many things working in their favor, and they even use that power to the disadvantage of less fortunate groups of people (or people who made different life choices). Anyway, "it is my FOSS project so I can charge people whatever I want." sounds reasonable.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y agoActually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
- gowld 1y agoYou can sideload apps onto your Android device using a developer setup, which is the setup that anyone building free software would use.
- kmeisthax 1y ago[dead]
- pabs3 1y agoGPLv2 requires allowing reinstallation of modified versions too: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- cosmic_cheese 1y agoThe bigger factor is whether or not Linux phones that are reasonably nice to use (everything works, isn’t flaky, battery life is decent-ish) come to market or not. Developers aren’t going to be interested in a platform that for practical purposes is at best a curiosity or something to tinker with, no matter how many idealist checkboxes they tick. Good North America market availability sure would help too. There’s been stuff like Sailfish that seemed interesting in the past but didn’t have easily purchasable devices available in the US, completely precluding development for the platform for a significant number of devs.
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y agoUsage restrictions are not allowed to be considered an OSI-approved Open-Source license. Plenty of people think that the OSI "Open Source Definition" is the only valid definition of "open source", and will thus reject calling such licenses "open source".
- seba_dos1 1y agoI've been happily using "GNU/Linux phones" since 2008, with only 2-3 years around 2017 of using an Android device as a backup, so there's no need to "hope"; you can just act.
- MYEUHD 1y agoHow's the battery life? Does the phone last an entire day on a single charge?
- beanjuiceII 1y agoit lasts 46 minutes
- kop316 1y agoI am trying out a Oneplus 6 on Mobian, and I got 29 hours of battery life on idle, and it is looking to be around 15 hours with light usage. With a Librem 5, its 12ish hours on idle, 20 hours on suspend, and 4-5 hours light usage.
- exe34 1y agodo they make phone calls? can they tether 5G? If so, I might be able invert my plan: use the Linux phone with phone/5G/useful software most of the time, and a cheap android phone in my bag that only comes out for things that need the monopoly apps and tethers to the useful one occasionally when necessary.
- kop316 1y agoBoth of those phones support LTE only. Both make/receive phone calls, but the Librem 5 is more stable on that front. The Fairphone 4/5 supports 5G, but I don't know how stable they are on pmOS/Mobian
- exe34 1y agoany suggestions on how you would call somebody on an iPhone over 5G or WiFi instead of a proper phone call on these? currently use WhatsApp.
- suryajena 1y agoWe're almost there, just about to kill off the custom ROMs/OSes. All we have to do is wait for the Android project to go closed source.
- GeekyBear 1y agoThey've been abandoning developer APIs only to replace them with closed source versions that are only installed as part of the Play Store for years.
- nekusar 1y agoI'm honestly surprised this didn't happen sooner. Apple's been a "lavish jail cell" since its inception, and the control definitely makes them the big bucks. ChromeOS was a jail cell from its inception too. You could do some dev stuff to enable user control, but it disabled other things. https://rainestorme.github.io/guide/ https://rainestorme.github.io/guide/ is a guide to jailbreak it. It shouldnt need jailbroken, ever. Should be yours from the moment you paid money for it and bought it. Google/Alphabet's been slowly tightening all sorts of things. Of course "security" is the term bandied around. Of course, I'd say "security" is overloaded - is it security for the user, or security for google AGAINST the user? I think it's the second. And we also have no valid 3rd party phone platform. In reality, there was Windows Phone, but that was even worse locked down. There's a few Linux phone projects. Pinephone is an embarrassment and an abject failure. I think the UbuntuPhone is dead as well. Once they do this, it'll probably be a while before a proper Linux phone hits the market.
- smileybarry 1y agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794
- gjsman-1000 1y ago"It's my device, I should be able to do whatever I want with it!" The reason this argument isn't holding water and swaying popular opinion, in my opinion, is because everything else in life is heavily regulated, licensed, and restricted. "It's my car, I should be able to do whatever I want with it!" does not hold, either for driving, or removing the catalytic converter, or changing the tuning to be able to roll coal, or uninstalling the seat belts. "It's my kitchen, I should be able to do whatever I want with it!" does not hold when I can't sell my baked goods to my neighbors without a license, or replace the interior of my kitchen without a permit. "It's my home, I should be able to do whatever I want with it!" does not hold when I can't build a deck, add an addition, or even install a new electrical outlet, without permission. Have you ever tried putting something in your front yard? Unless we agree to fight for freedom everywhere, the only logical excuse is that the digital world doesn't have real world consequences, except that it increasingly patently does now. It's no surprise to me then that the argument does not resonate. That does mean we may have to allow people to have an uncomfortable level of freedom, across the board, in order to be logically consistent, and broaden chance of success. The technologist sees licensing from Google to develop Android apps as tyranny. The average person asks "where have you been? What can you do without a license?"
- amelius 1y agoAre you trying to further normalize the situation?
- gjsman-1000 1y agoI said it was inconsistent to fight for digital freedoms without real world freedoms. I did not say I was okay with the loss of digital freedoms. I think people should be able to build a deck without state consent. I think people should be able to sell to their neighbors without the health department watching. I think people should be able to start a small business without needing IRS filings at first. I think a small business might need OSHA exceptions across the board for the first few employees. I even think, yes, that allowing some idiots to roll coal is worth more than tightly regulating car repairs and controlling car repair equipment. And I think, to most people, these freedoms matter more than digital sovereignty. --- Edit, posting too fast, cannot reply directly: In that case, that's a great argument for regulating app distribution, we need to protect people from scam apps. We can't possibly neglect people who don't know better about the risks of sideloading. I'm sure you wouldn't say, "I just want to do whatever I want with code, while stopping my neighbor from building a dangerous deck," with a straight face, right?
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 and followup development is a week old now also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45428832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45428832
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bigwheels 1y agoF-Droid and Google’s developer registration decree (f-droid.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 - 8 days ago, 567 comments Answering questions about Android developer verification (googleblog.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45428832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45428832 - 3 days ago, 121 comments
- pydry 1y agoThis was clearly the idea. Google doesnt like competition.
- 4fterd4rk 1y agoAbsolutely no one gives a shit about the features the out of touch nerds value, which is why Android inevitably begins to follow Apple.
- rockskon 1y agoThis post was brought to you by your local troll.
- beanjuiceII 1y agonot so sure about that, if i found 100 android users out and about i'd be lucky to find 1 that gives a shit
- rockskon 1y agoYou're missing the forest for the trees. General purpose computing has been the backbone of the modern tech economy for decades and has changed our way of life. Efforts to restrict that such as no longer allowing people to install applications-Google-hasn't-approved on their own devices is only going to benefit Google at the expense of others and cripple future innovation in the software ecosystem for mobile.
- GeekyBear 1y agoGoogle selling Android as both open source and open to running any software you like in order to quickly gain market share, only to break those promises after driving competing platforms out of the market is nothing more than fraud.
- Apocryphon 1y agoIt took them 17 years to finally pull the cage all the way shut. A long con indeed.
- GeekyBear 1y agoYou think it's an accident that they've been abandoning developer APIs and replacing them with closed source Play Store versions for a decade now?
- Apocryphon 1y agoNot at all. I’m just sort of impressed that, like I said, they it took them this long to fully close it now.
- ajross 1y agoOther hyperbole notwithstanding, Google has pretty clearly done an extremely bad job of driving competing platforms out of the smartphone market.
- GeekyBear 1y agoTell it to Blackberry, Windows Phone, WebOS and the Nokia N900.
- lucb1e 1y agothere's also Palm OS (Palm, '96-'09), Maemo (Nokia, '05-'11), Moblin (Intel, '07-'09), webOS (LG, '09+), Bada (Samsung, '10-'13), Ubuntu Touch (Canonical, '11+), Tizen (Linux Foundation, Samsung, '12+), Firefox OS (Mozilla, '13-'15), KaiOS (FirefoxOS fork, '17+), Sailfish OS (Jolla, '13+), LuneOS (WebOS Ports community, '14+), postmarketOS (Oliver Smith, '16+), Mobian (Debian, '20), EMUI (Huawei, google-free since '20)... yeah "Google has pretty clearly done an extremely bad job" at making competitors obsolete. Intel, Samsung, Nokia, etc. are all tiny companies who had no chance anyway, especially at the time before Android was firmly established as one of two platforms mobile developers bother making software for
- vzaliva 1y agoLocked app store was my primary reason staying away from iPhone. Now, this is gone. It also open door for censorship, like disabling ICE-tracking or other politically inconvenient apps. This is a terrible decision for Android and for our freedoms.
- chasil 1y agoGoogle only directly controls the Pixel line. OEMs may be forced to do the same, but 3rd party ROMs will not. I do agree this cuts deeply for F-Droid.
- GeekyBear 1y agoGoogle only directly controls the Pixel line because of antitrust action from the EU. Originally, device makers who used Android themselves were contractually prohibited from manufacturing devices for any company that forked Android, for instance.
- bpye 1y ago> but 3rd party ROMs will not. Google are also making that harder, at least for the Pixel line by no longer publishing the device tree as part of AOSP. I know Fairphone do publish a buildable tree - though it's not yet available for their latest device - does anyone else?
- skrlet13 1y agoAlso, you cannot unlock most phone's bootloaders nowadays, so you cannot even try them.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- numpad0 1y agoGoogle can force OEMs implement non-unlockable secure boot.
- gnarbarian 1y agowell, it may be time for GrapheneOS https://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/
- okokwhatever 1y agoSo, the old smartphones (I'm thinking something like an Android 13) will still be able to install any software?
- dorfsmay 1y agoA lot of software like banking and governments' identification won't work on old Android versions.
- okokwhatever 1y agoOf course, two phones: one to Play, one to Pay
- john01dav 1y agoI want regulation that divides all software into two categories: part of the hardware, or not part of the hardware, with specific requirements. Part of the hardware: - Can be restricted to specific devices - Must be available under GPLv3, including anti-tivoization provisions (forced bootloader unlock) - May not attempt to use TPMs, DRM, or other systems to support assertions about client devices Not part of the hardware: - May only interact with hardware through public, documented, APIs in the "part of hardware" category - Using alternatives from competitors must be fully supported - When made by a company that also makes hardware, must also work on competitors' hardware (at least one, more if technically feasible) - May be under a proprietary license - Must not attempt to assert anything regarding the hardware, so things like Google Safteynet are now illegal. Security boundary must be shifted to consider client devices insecure This is, I think, a good compromise to allow software developers to get paid without taking away ownership of hardware devices. Developers can be paid for "part of the hardware" software with money from selling the hardware, and "not part of the hardware" software can be trivially commercialized under a proprietary license. But, there is no way for a user to end up unable to control their hardware, or incentivized to configure it in a specific way.
- Arch-TK 1y agoUnfortunately it's never going to happen. Also, things like TPMs, Secure Boot, etc, are good security tools which can be used by an end user to get security guarantees over their device. I use Secure Boot with Linux because, when done right, it means you can get full disk encryption without gaps (at best, without secure boot, you have an un-encrypted bootloader on a flash drive which decrypts your disk and boots your machine, and this is a clunky setup). I use GrapheneOS's hardware attestation to alert me if something compromises my android phone's operating system. Now it's true that these features are abused by companies like Google to force you to run a blessed Android build if you want to use e.g. Google Pay (which is the only mobile payment option in e.g. the UK). But it's important to separate the technology from the bad actors abusing it.
- Brian_K_White 1y agoThe difference is you using the tpm feature and anyone else using the tpm feature. The feature can exist as long as it's only there for you not for anyone else. You can satisfy yourself that no one has hacked your device. Your bank can not satisfy itself that they have ultimate control over your device instead of you.
- gowld 1y agoCan someone explain this? https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration... > The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications. I don't understand the argument.
- torben-friis 1y agoThe first part is obvious I think (they don't want to make registration in google's store a requirement for f-droid since that defeats half the purpose of f-droid). The other half is suggesting they could offer uploading the apps put into f-droid to the store (under an f-droid account I'd guess) but they immediately discard that option since it would make f-droid the exclusive distributor, taking something from the dev.
- WithinReason 1y agowhy would the dev lose the right to distribute their app?
- veeti 1y agoThe signing key with the majority of installs "wins" the package name for use, meaning that only the developer or F-Droid's key can be used for one app.
- WithinReason 1y agocould they just append f-droid to the name then?
- Animats 1y agoAre there good Google-free Android phones? Recommendations?
- imiric 1y agoGrapheneOS has been rock solid for me for several years now. Just pick any Pixel device. As for software, there are alternatives to everything you can find on the Play Store, assuming you're not reliant on a specific Google product. GOS has robust support for sandboxed Play services that work without Google, though I personally haven't used it. Even banking apps work without an issue for me, though YMMV. I'm considering abandoning Android altogether in favor of a proper Linux device, but GOS is what makes Android usable for me.
- Animats 1y agoSo the best source for Google-free phones is ... Google?
- imiric 1y agoIf you don't want to sacrifice security, usability, or reliability, yes. If you object to having any business with Google or using their hardware, then no.
- heidarb 1y agoUntil someone else makes phones that pass the strict requirements set by the GrapheneOS team, then yes. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
- heidarb 1y agoPick any pixel device, except pixel 10. It’s not supported and no word on when they will add support since google are no longer open sourcing the drivers for the pixel phones. Hopefully they manage to figure it out.
- lucb1e 1y agohttps://murena.com https://murena.com (sells e/OS on Pixel, Fairphone, SHIFTphone, and "Hiroh powered by Murena" hardware, whatever that last one is) https://www.shift.eco https://www.shift.eco (need to somehow get ShiftOS-L variant; the -G variant has Google services on board)
- 0xbadcafebee 1y agoDo it, Google! Nobody's going to fight for their computing rights until you've stepped on them hard enough. I can't wait for the amazing (non-Google) products that come out after this.
- yaro330 1y agoLike EMUI from Huawei or Xiaomi's HyperOS? Be real. Nothing is gonna come of it.
- 0xbadcafebee 1y agoLike LineageOS, GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, Droidian, Mobian, /e/OS, SailfishOS, postmarketOS, PureOS, Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, etc, etc. There are a dozen or more Android alternatives (either forks or completely separate OS) currently in development and with phones launched. That's just what's out so far. Locking down the platform will force more people into this growing ecosystem.
- aryonoco 1y agoI started on Android in 2008. I maintained my own ROM, complete with a custom kernel. Then I moved on to various AOSP forks. I ran the local Android Developers MeetUp and evangelised the platform for so many years. This year I finally moved to iOS. I don’t feel happy about it, but they are now both basically as closed as each other, both are run by what I consider evil corporations. If you told the teenager me in mid 90s, watching the internet bloom all around me, promising freedom and democratisation of access to knowledge the world over, that one day we would replace the open, standards based, federated, decentralised World Wide Web with two proprietary walled gardens, beholden forever to the whims of two companies, I would have thought you’re nuts.
- joquarky 1y agoEverything eventually becomes the Torment Nexus when greed becomes culturally acceptable.
- t0bia_s 1y agoHow many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know, because we don’t track users or have any registration: “No user accounts, by design” I use F-droid since around 2015, install it also for many family members and give them option to use open source alternatives of apps. Most used apps are from F-Droid, about 20% from Aurora Store. No play services or gaaps at all.
- tabbytown 1y agoPixel 9 owner and F-Droid user. I voiced my opposition by filling out this form (thanks azalemeth, from the earlier discussion): https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfN3UQeNspQsZCO2ITkdzMxv81rJDEGGjO-UIDDY28Rz_GEVA/viewform?fbzx=8868572253864563703 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfN3UQeNspQsZCO2ITk... Hopefully some reasonable people are listening at Google and just need to know that > 5 people use F-Droid. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794#45411497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794#45411497
- oliwarner 1y agoThe EU can't get involved fast enough. The Digital Markets Act should prevent Google from inserting themselves into the process of downloading apps from third parties.