3 ms·

Break free from Android... by installing Android? I'm not sure it's really breaking free when the first task to do is intall Google Play Services so your bankin

by haunter 8mo ago

Break free from Android... by installing Android? I'm not sure it's really breaking free when the first task to do is intall Google Play Services so your banking app works. Sounds like we can't actually breaking free from Android and iOS. Maybe with Linux like the Fedora Atomic for mobile devices? https://github.com/pocketblue/pocketblue https://github.com/pocketblue/pocketblue Or PostmarketOS? https://postmarketos.org/ https://postmarketos.org/ Even then banking would probably only work through the browser... Sad state of the world really.

to3k 8mo ago
I tried Ubuntu Touch and Droidian https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/ubuntu-touch-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/ubuntu-touch-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/droidian-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/droidian-eng/
arein3 8mo ago
And the 50% of banking apps still wont work because it wants an android signed by google. And no tap to pay. Hopefully the new EU banking system will work on Graphene and Ill switch back
- wisplike 8mo ago
  [dead]
- Maken 8mo ago
  The new payment networks are not an independent app. They are a protocol your banking app has to implement, so unless your bank supports non-Google phones you are out of luck (not my case, thankfully).
- lejalv 8mo ago
  I would put the focus on having capable web-banking. I never install the banking app on my phone. I must also be getting old, because I don't get the big fuss about NFC payments. Firstly, I'd never use them if they go through Google/Apple. But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)?
  - palata 8mo ago
    Agreed about NFC, I'm happy to scan a QR code. > But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)? Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that. But the rational solution IMO is for the banking system to use QR codes instead of NFC. Some countries do that and it just works.
    - lejalv 8mo ago
      > Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that. You have a point, and even though it looks like it will be a very corporate-driven system, and possibly dependent on Google or Apple, there seems to be an EU payment system on the making (if it ends up depending on Google or Apple, that will be the irony of leaving VISA/Mastercard to fall in the fangs of Google / Apple, but... oh well, one step at a time). I think the name is Wero, it was on HN a few days ago.
- palata 8mo ago
  > And the 50% of banking apps still wont work because it wants an android signed by google. Where do you get that number from? All the banking apps I've tried work on GrapheneOS. > And no tap to pay. There are countries where the payment terminals show QR codes, and banking apps work by scanning it. No need for NFC :-).
palata 8mo ago
You're confused. GrapheneOS is not Android, it's an AOSP-based OS. > I'm not sure it's really breaking free when the first task to do is intall Google Play Services so your banking app works. sandboxed Google Play Services. It's an important difference.
- hengistbury 8mo ago
  What is the difference here between "Android" and "AOSP" (Android Open Source Project)?
  - palata 8mo ago
    AOSP is Android without the Google proprietary stuff (and without the manufacturer proprietary stuff, e.g. Samsung's). If you install bare AOSP, it will look like the Android on a Pixel phone, but the biggest difference you will see is that it won't have the Play Services or some Google apps. If you want to be a certified Android system (like all Android manufacturers do), you have to port AOSP to your hardware, install the Play Services as a system app (giving Google root access), install the system apps you want (e.g. Samsung have their own UI, maybe their own camera, their own store that they want to be installed as system apps), pass some conformity tests by Google (Google wants to ensure that it's good enough to be called "Android") and pay a ton of money to Google for the licence. But as an individual, you can just download the AOSP sources, build them and install them on your phone. It's AOSP, but not Android. GrapheneOS is based on AOSP. /e/OS is based on LineageOS which is based on AOSP. Those are not Android systems, they are AOSP-based systems. In a way like Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. Those are different layers. If you hate Canonical, it doesn't mean that you have to hate Debian, even though Canonical does contribute to software that runs in Debian (like the Linux kernel). The comparison is worth what it's worth, but I hope you get my point :-).
    - seba_dos1 8mo ago
      You're confused. To quote Google's documentation: > To build an Android-compatible mobile device, follow this three-step process: > 1. Using AOSP, implement Android on your device. > 2. Ensure your device complies with the Android Compatibility Definition Document. The CDD enumerates the software and hardware requirements for an Android-compatible device. > 3. Pass the Compatibility Test Suite (CTS). Use the CTS as an ongoing aid to evaluate compatibility during the development process. AOSP is how Android is being distributed. Being "Android-compatible" (implementing Android and passing CTS) does not automatically give you access to Google Play, it just unlocks the possibility of licensing it: > After achieving compatibility, your device is considered Android compatible and you can consider Licensing Google Mobile Services (GMS) and prepare to use the Android trademark. Google restricts the use of "Android" trademark on hardware, packaging or marketing materials of devices and requires prior approval of any use, but that doesn't make AOSP "not Android". If you insist otherwise, you're going against common use of these terms. In fact, not just "common use", but even Google's use - AOSP's homepage has this as its headline: > Android is an open source software stack created for a wide array of devices with different form factors. It also tells you how to "get the Android source" or "build the Android OS". Sure, many apps that are being called "Android apps" are in fact apps for the Google Play platform (perhaps that's where you got your confusion from), but that doesn't make Android-based systems non-Android.

by haunter 8mo ago

to3k 8mo ago

I tried Ubuntu Touch and Droidian https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/ubuntu-touch-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/ubuntu-touch-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/droidian-eng/ https://blog.tomaszdunia.pl/droidian-eng/

arein3 8mo ago

And the 50% of banking apps still wont work because it wants an android signed by google. And no tap to pay. Hopefully the new EU banking system will work on Graphene and Ill switch back

wisplike 8mo ago
[dead]
Maken 8mo ago
The new payment networks are not an independent app. They are a protocol your banking app has to implement, so unless your bank supports non-Google phones you are out of luck (not my case, thankfully).
lejalv 8mo ago
I would put the focus on having capable web-banking. I never install the banking app on my phone. I must also be getting old, because I don't get the big fuss about NFC payments. Firstly, I'd never use them if they go through Google/Apple. But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)?
- palata 8mo ago
  Agreed about NFC, I'm happy to scan a QR code. > But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)? Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that. But the rational solution IMO is for the banking system to use QR codes instead of NFC. Some countries do that and it just works.
  - lejalv 8mo ago
    > Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that. You have a point, and even though it looks like it will be a very corporate-driven system, and possibly dependent on Google or Apple, there seems to be an EU payment system on the making (if it ends up depending on Google or Apple, that will be the irony of leaving VISA/Mastercard to fall in the fangs of Google / Apple, but... oh well, one step at a time). I think the name is Wero, it was on HN a few days ago.
palata 8mo ago
> And the 50% of banking apps still wont work because it wants an android signed by google. Where do you get that number from? All the banking apps I've tried work on GrapheneOS. > And no tap to pay. There are countries where the payment terminals show QR codes, and banking apps work by scanning it. No need for NFC :-).

palata 8mo ago

You're confused. GrapheneOS is not Android, it's an AOSP-based OS. > I'm not sure it's really breaking free when the first task to do is intall Google Play Services so your banking app works. sandboxed Google Play Services. It's an important difference.

hengistbury 8mo ago
What is the difference here between "Android" and "AOSP" (Android Open Source Project)?
- palata 8mo ago
  AOSP is Android without the Google proprietary stuff (and without the manufacturer proprietary stuff, e.g. Samsung's). If you install bare AOSP, it will look like the Android on a Pixel phone, but the biggest difference you will see is that it won't have the Play Services or some Google apps. If you want to be a certified Android system (like all Android manufacturers do), you have to port AOSP to your hardware, install the Play Services as a system app (giving Google root access), install the system apps you want (e.g. Samsung have their own UI, maybe their own camera, their own store that they want to be installed as system apps), pass some conformity tests by Google (Google wants to ensure that it's good enough to be called "Android") and pay a ton of money to Google for the licence. But as an individual, you can just download the AOSP sources, build them and install them on your phone. It's AOSP, but not Android. GrapheneOS is based on AOSP. /e/OS is based on LineageOS which is based on AOSP. Those are not Android systems, they are AOSP-based systems. In a way like Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. Those are different layers. If you hate Canonical, it doesn't mean that you have to hate Debian, even though Canonical does contribute to software that runs in Debian (like the Linux kernel). The comparison is worth what it's worth, but I hope you get my point :-).
  - seba_dos1 8mo ago
    You're confused. To quote Google's documentation: > To build an Android-compatible mobile device, follow this three-step process: > 1. Using AOSP, implement Android on your device. > 2. Ensure your device complies with the Android Compatibility Definition Document. The CDD enumerates the software and hardware requirements for an Android-compatible device. > 3. Pass the Compatibility Test Suite (CTS). Use the CTS as an ongoing aid to evaluate compatibility during the development process. AOSP is how Android is being distributed. Being "Android-compatible" (implementing Android and passing CTS) does not automatically give you access to Google Play, it just unlocks the possibility of licensing it: > After achieving compatibility, your device is considered Android compatible and you can consider Licensing Google Mobile Services (GMS) and prepare to use the Android trademark. Google restricts the use of "Android" trademark on hardware, packaging or marketing materials of devices and requires prior approval of any use, but that doesn't make AOSP "not Android". If you insist otherwise, you're going against common use of these terms. In fact, not just "common use", but even Google's use - AOSP's homepage has this as its headline: > Android is an open source software stack created for a wide array of devices with different form factors. It also tells you how to "get the Android source" or "build the Android OS". Sure, many apps that are being called "Android apps" are in fact apps for the Google Play platform (perhaps that's where you got your confusion from), but that doesn't make Android-based systems non-Android.