4 ms·

> Sadly, over the years, Android has been steadily walking back that openness. The justifications are always reasonable on their face. Security updates need to

> Sadly, over the years, Android has been steadily walking back that openness. The justifications are always reasonable on their face. Security updates need to be mandatory because users are terrible at remembering to update. Sideloading apps need to come with warnings because users will absolutely install malware if you let them just click a button. Root access is too dangerous because it puts the security of the whole system and other apps at risk. But inch by inch, it gets harder to run what you want on the device you paid for. As much as I want to agree with this author (and do, to an extent) they are also providing the exact and honestly-pretty-good reasons for why this is happening: computers have breached containment, and they did it a long time ago. Computers are not just for us weird nerds anymore and they haven't been for some time; they're tools for a larger, more complicated, more diverse userbase, many of whom are simply not interested in learning how to computer. They just want shit to work, reliably. Random software on the Internet is not a path to reliability if you also don't know how your thing actually works. I mourn this too but let's not pretend it's simply what happened because corporations are evil (though they are for sure that).

vmaurin 1y ago
The security argument is the best one to shove all this monopoly practices, but I doubt there are real proof of that somewhere. These days, I think I have most trust in a small app developed by a folk in a garage than something produces by Meta or Google
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rk06 1y ago
  the existence of shady and criminal apps on both apple and android app store proves that their policies are definitely not sufficient and should be focused on first.
cjs_ac 1y ago
Exactly: smartphones and tablets are designated safe spaces for 'normies'. If you want to do serious computing, serious machines (laptops, desktops, servers) are still available.
- fart-fart-FART 1y ago
  for now. there are plenty of "honestly-pretty-good reasons" we plebs shouldn't have access to general purpose computers, and we're only a few decades away from them reclassified into the equivalent of fully automatic rifles.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  Even as someone who “knows what they are doing” I still want one secure computer to do my banking, hold all my most personal data, etc. Then I have raspberry pi and steam deck which I use for messing around with and running whatever weird software.
NoboruWataya 1y ago
It's particularly hard to swallow these justifications when advanced by Google considering how much malware there is on the Play Store. I have never once had an issue with malware installed via F-Droid but have had multiple issues with apps from the Play Store. But apparently it's F-Droid I need to be protected from. (Granted, the Play Store malware I experienced was in the nature of "pop up ads on your phone randomly", not stealing your bank credentials, but it shows how little actual vetting goes on.) I do understand the broader point. I know a few elderly people in particular who are walking targets for cybercrime. But I wish we had more differentiation. Locked down, easy to use phones for those who want or need that, and more open phones that act similar to laptops for those who know what they're doing (or, in any case, are willing and able to bear the risk).
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  I mean, we did. We had iOS and Android. The issue is Apple makes more money via these practices per user than Google did, and Google is therefore imitating them and their products.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
fart-fart-FART 1y ago
[dead]
jwrallie 1y ago
If only they did work reliably though… When the software on these locked down devices breaks down, and it does, everyone is helpless. When a zero day is found, again everyone is helpless. If we cannot understand how something works on all layers, stability and security are only promises.
dns_snek 1y ago
Doing evil things under the guise of good intentions (with reasons that appear valid on the surface) has always been the playbook. All you're doing is excusing it - let's not. If this was genuinely about security and UX then they would continue to provide viable "escape hatches", but it isn't and so they don't. That's what's being criticized.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  I disagree, I don’t think I’m excusing it at all and your argument hinges on the restriction of software running on hardware to be evil. I wouldn’t describe it that way. I think it’s frustrating certainly but I don’t think you have an inalienable right to run code of your choice. I would characterize it more as Google is responding to the needs of the vast majority of its users, most of whom do not care to run unsigned software, certainly don’t write it, and have no need of escape hatches. Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited. And not to leave it merely implied: they are also responding to large development organizations who want locked down platforms in which they can distribute, and more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > I don’t think you have an inalienable right to run code of your choice > more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software. If you represent the interests of corporations then try leading with that next time. > Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited. Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly, it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      > If you represent the interests of corporations then try leading with that next time. I don't. I'm just saying Google and whichever boogeyman you'd care to slot into position 2 share the same interests. Far more than you or me and Google anyway. > Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly To a laymen user, any software that is running without code signing has a much much much higher chance of being something that has gone wrong rather than Joe Public found a cool image editing app that doesn't want to be distributed via the Play store. Are there exceptions? Sure, I'm certainly a big one. Does that mean I don't understand Google's position here? No. > it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act. If true, they'll end up in court, same as Apple did.
diego_moita 1y ago
100% agree. This is a recurring pattern: people make bad choices, mostly out of ignorance, but no one blames the public because we always assume that in a democracy the costumer and the voter are always right. Behind every corrupt politician or every greedy corporation there are thousands or millions of negligent and ignorant voters and costumers.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  And like, with the ubiquity of this tech, I have to kind of concede at least some of the point. A smartphone is just shy of essential for modern living these days. Banking, purchase of goods and services, managing your relationship with your city and state, filing taxes, getting directions, ALL communications, all occur via your phone. Your phone is not MERELY a computer, a CPU with memory attached that you can make do things, for most people, I'd say it's an essential piece of IT hardware. Most people would prefer, I think, to lose their computers, TV's, consoles, etc. far before their phone. A phone is CRITICAL now, for better and worse. So it sucks ass that a greater and greater share of what we consider computing has to occur in platforms that are utterly locked down to the core, but again, at the same time, putting my "regular user" hat on here: I don't want my phone to run anything from an untrustworthy source. My computer? Shit yeah, I'll try just about anything with a healthy skepticism as required, but not my phone. Losing a computer is irritating. Losing a phone is a fucking MESS.

vmaurin 1y ago

The security argument is the best one to shove all this monopoly practices, but I doubt there are real proof of that somewhere. These days, I think I have most trust in a small app developed by a folk in a garage than something produces by Meta or Google

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rk06 1y ago
the existence of shady and criminal apps on both apple and android app store proves that their policies are definitely not sufficient and should be focused on first.

cjs_ac 1y ago

Exactly: smartphones and tablets are designated safe spaces for 'normies'. If you want to do serious computing, serious machines (laptops, desktops, servers) are still available.

fart-fart-FART 1y ago
for now. there are plenty of "honestly-pretty-good reasons" we plebs shouldn't have access to general purpose computers, and we're only a few decades away from them reclassified into the equivalent of fully automatic rifles.
Gigachad 1y ago
Even as someone who “knows what they are doing” I still want one secure computer to do my banking, hold all my most personal data, etc. Then I have raspberry pi and steam deck which I use for messing around with and running whatever weird software.

NoboruWataya 1y ago

It's particularly hard to swallow these justifications when advanced by Google considering how much malware there is on the Play Store. I have never once had an issue with malware installed via F-Droid but have had multiple issues with apps from the Play Store. But apparently it's F-Droid I need to be protected from. (Granted, the Play Store malware I experienced was in the nature of "pop up ads on your phone randomly", not stealing your bank credentials, but it shows how little actual vetting goes on.) I do understand the broader point. I know a few elderly people in particular who are walking targets for cybercrime. But I wish we had more differentiation. Locked down, easy to use phones for those who want or need that, and more open phones that act similar to laptops for those who know what they're doing (or, in any case, are willing and able to bear the risk).

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
I mean, we did. We had iOS and Android. The issue is Apple makes more money via these practices per user than Google did, and Google is therefore imitating them and their products.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

fart-fart-FART 1y ago

[dead]

jwrallie 1y ago

If only they did work reliably though… When the software on these locked down devices breaks down, and it does, everyone is helpless. When a zero day is found, again everyone is helpless. If we cannot understand how something works on all layers, stability and security are only promises.

dns_snek 1y ago

Doing evil things under the guise of good intentions (with reasons that appear valid on the surface) has always been the playbook. All you're doing is excusing it - let's not. If this was genuinely about security and UX then they would continue to provide viable "escape hatches", but it isn't and so they don't. That's what's being criticized.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
I disagree, I don’t think I’m excusing it at all and your argument hinges on the restriction of software running on hardware to be evil. I wouldn’t describe it that way. I think it’s frustrating certainly but I don’t think you have an inalienable right to run code of your choice. I would characterize it more as Google is responding to the needs of the vast majority of its users, most of whom do not care to run unsigned software, certainly don’t write it, and have no need of escape hatches. Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited. And not to leave it merely implied: they are also responding to large development organizations who want locked down platforms in which they can distribute, and more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > I don’t think you have an inalienable right to run code of your choice > more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software. If you represent the interests of corporations then try leading with that next time. > Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited. Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly, it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    > If you represent the interests of corporations then try leading with that next time. I don't. I'm just saying Google and whichever boogeyman you'd care to slot into position 2 share the same interests. Far more than you or me and Google anyway. > Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly To a laymen user, any software that is running without code signing has a much much much higher chance of being something that has gone wrong rather than Joe Public found a cool image editing app that doesn't want to be distributed via the Play store. Are there exceptions? Sure, I'm certainly a big one. Does that mean I don't understand Google's position here? No. > it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act. If true, they'll end up in court, same as Apple did.

diego_moita 1y ago

100% agree. This is a recurring pattern: people make bad choices, mostly out of ignorance, but no one blames the public because we always assume that in a democracy the costumer and the voter are always right. Behind every corrupt politician or every greedy corporation there are thousands or millions of negligent and ignorant voters and costumers.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
And like, with the ubiquity of this tech, I have to kind of concede at least some of the point. A smartphone is just shy of essential for modern living these days. Banking, purchase of goods and services, managing your relationship with your city and state, filing taxes, getting directions, ALL communications, all occur via your phone. Your phone is not MERELY a computer, a CPU with memory attached that you can make do things, for most people, I'd say it's an essential piece of IT hardware. Most people would prefer, I think, to lose their computers, TV's, consoles, etc. far before their phone. A phone is CRITICAL now, for better and worse. So it sucks ass that a greater and greater share of what we consider computing has to occur in platforms that are utterly locked down to the core, but again, at the same time, putting my "regular user" hat on here: I don't want my phone to run anything from an untrustworthy source. My computer? Shit yeah, I'll try just about anything with a healthy skepticism as required, but not my phone. Losing a computer is irritating. Losing a phone is a fucking MESS.