4 ms·
You’re still proving the point above, which is ignoring the fact that the restriction is specifically targeted at a small number of countries. Google is also ro
by Aurornis 1y ago
You’re still proving the point above, which is ignoring the fact that the restriction is specifically targeted at a small number of countries. Google is also rolling out processes for advanced users to install apps. It’s all in the linked post (which apparently isn’t being read by the people injecting their own assumptions)
Google is not rolling this out to protect against YouTube ReVanced but only in a small number of countries. That’s an illogical conclusion to draw from the facts.
- unsungNovelty 1y agoIts my device. Not google's. Imagine telling you which NPM/PIP packages you can install from your terminal. Also, its not SIDE loading. Its installing an app.
- freefaler 1y agoWell... it would be good if this was true, but read the ToS and it looks more like a licence to use than "ownership" sadly :(
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago"Android" is really a lot of different code but most of it is the Apache license or the GPL. Google Play has its own ToS, but why should that have to do with anything when you're not using it?
- johnnyanmac 1y agoGoogle doesn't own AOSP. We don't need any google apps on an andoid phone for it to function.
- xnx 1y agoI agree, but I don't see why Google gets more critical attention than the iPhone or Xbox.
- _blk 1y agoiPhone has always been that way (try installing an .ipa file that's not signed with a valid apple developer certificate). For Google forced app verification is a major change. Xbox I don't know..
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- da_chicken 1y agoYeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. I'm not on the side of locking people out, but this is a poor argument.
- cookiengineer 1y ago> Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows. Hence you don't realize how good of an argument it is, because you even bamboozled yourself without realizing it. It gets a worse argument if we want to discuss Qubes and other distributions that are actually focused on security, e.g. via firejail, hardened kernels or user namespaces to sandbox apps.
- Ms-J 1y ago"Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows." This is only true if you use Secure boot. It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. Then any OS can be installed.
- Lammy 1y agoI agree with you and run with it disabled myself, but some anti-cheat software will block you if you do this. Battlefield 6 and Valorant both require it.
- a96 1y agoThis is the real malware that people should be protected from.
- HumanOstrich 1y agoWhile it's possible to install and use Windows 11 without Secure Boot enabled, it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft and doesn't meet the minimum system requirements. Thus it could negatively affect the ability to get updates and support. > It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. You know what's even less secure? Having it off.
- Aeolun 1y agoA small number of countries now. The rest of the world in 2027 and beyond.
- jeroenhd 1y agoThe countries that go after Google are the first wave, they're applying these restrictions globally not much later. The linked post is full of fluff and low on detail. Google doesn't seem to have the details themselves; they're continuing with the rollout while still designing the flow that will let experienced users install apps like normal.