7 ms·

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn'

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get serious about the search and migration plan.

motbus3 7mo ago
But but but it is for your security! You need to be protected! Android isn't open source for a while. They started by pushing device certification which crippled any abilities of OEMs to make a better framework. Then they took many of the opensource packages out of android and redistributed as applications that they controlled via play services. Then they made it harder to publish packages and created tons of rules that they can arbitrarily decide to cut ties with you or remove your remuneration. What they are effectively doing now is to remove any ability of individual developers to push applications. Some will say the costs ain't that high, but (1) maybe not in USD dollars for Americans and (2) both Google and Apple will push those numbers way up high soon. Even if that is not the case, if you don't agree with anything and you decide to have your own version of your family wiki, messenger or anything, they will be able to tell the authorities about it. This is insane....
JLCarveth 7mo ago
Being able to side load apps was why I switched to android 10 years ago
- ux266478 7mo ago
  Yeah. Computing freedom to have a root shell and do as I please is the entire reason I put up with Android. Google is positioning Android to just be nothing more than a worse iOS. There's pretty much no point to it anymore.
- matheusmoreira 7mo ago
  Same. If Google does this, my next phone will be an iPhone. Freedom is the only reason to put up with Android's shittiness. If they turn it into a walled garden, then we'll choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't Google's.
  - foxes 7mo ago
    What? So you dont value freedom at all? Theres other alternatives too.. graphene, lineage
    - m4rtink 7mo ago
      Sailfish OS - they even run a device preorder right now.
      - anonzzzies 7mo ago
        But is it open? Seems not; parts are closed so is that not just more of the same?
        fsflover 7mo ago
        postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS are open.
        m4rtink 7mo ago
        Yeah, some bits (parts of the GUI & some of the default apps) are still closed. But I think there is a good chance they will finally open those now - never really made any sense to keep them closed and preventing the community from contributing. Rumors had it it was due to non-cooperative investors. Not Jolla is finally independent again, so at least in theory they can finally do the right thing. :)
    - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
      GrapheneOS is Android's last hope. They're making great progress with deals with smartphone manufacturers. However, the threat of remote attestation looms eternal. I have essential apps that I cannot afford to lose and if they refuse to work on a non-Google phone the usefulness of GrapheneOS is severely degraded.
- tejtm 7mo ago
  Please call it what it is and always has been: I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E "side load" is like "jay walking' seeks to stigmatize humans being human.
  - tredre3 7mo ago
    When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people. So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Xirdus 7mo ago
      The term jaywalking was invented (or possibly hijacked) by automotive lobbyists as part of a campaign in 1910s and 1920s to convince the public and the lawmakers that crossing streets outside designated points is bad and should be made illegal. Before then, it was generally considered basic human right to walk anywhere on a street. Whether you agree that jaywalking is bad or not, that's the history of the term. Grandparent is saying that the term sideloading was invented in a similar fashion to delegitimize a previously completely normal way to use an electronic device.
    - spaqin 7mo ago
      Yeah, I'm willing to use my brain and look at incoming cars and just walk when it's empty and safe to do so? Where's the problem in that? I have eyes and can judge distance and speed?
    - wiseowise 7mo ago
      > Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please In the cities? Yes, absolutely.
    - pjc50 7mo ago
- EvanAnderson 7mo ago
  I switched from iOS to Android about three years ago. I saved all the APKs for everything I installed (or updated) on that first phone. When I got a new phone last fall it was pleasantly like getting a new PC. I imported my SMS and contacts from my last backup (taken with an open source took I'd installed from an APK), then installed all the apps I use and imported or manually set any settings I wanted to customize. Every non-stock app on my phone was installed from an APK directly downloaded from the manufacturer or open source developer's site / Github releases. I've never had a Google Play account and have never used any Android "app store". The biggest pain was having to manually logon the couple of sites I allow to keep persistent cookies since device owners aren't allowed to just import/export cookies from mobile Chrome. It has been a very nice experience. I appreciate the feeling of sovereignty and ownership of my device (even though it does have a locked bootloader and I don't actually have root). Of course Google would take this away. >sigh<
  - wishfish 7mo ago
    I did something similar. Wanted a Pixel with Graphene OS but the screen hurt my eyes. Went with a Motorola with an IPS screen. Uninstalled or disabled all the crap. Never logged into Google. Went with Obtanium and F-Droid for most software. Aurora for a couple of apps that were only on the Play Store. Used NetGuard with a whitelist to lock it all down. After all that was done, the phone felt like mine in a way that my iPhone doesn't. Was a good feeling. With luck, the Motorola + Graphene partnership will produce phones with screens better than the Pixel and I can keep doing this.
    - EvanAnderson 7mo ago
      I ended up with a Motorola phone, too (albeit with an AMOLED screen so not the model you have). I got hooked on Motorola phones because of the "chop/chop" flashlight gesture. I don't think I can use a phone without that gesture ever again! >smile< I'm hopeful, too, re: Motorola + Graphene. I wanted to use Graphene last fall wehn I got the new phone but I was committed to not giving Google any money.
    - drnick1 7mo ago
cosmotic 7mo ago
Rounded to the nearest percent, I'd guess power users make up 0% of android user base.
- eimrine 7mo ago
  And what is your view on the percentage of power users among iphone user base? Also zero? One hundred? So interesting.
  - cosmic_cheese 7mo ago
    The share of power users on iOS might be larger than expected because a lot of people working in tech fight computers for a living and prefer their phones to be simple appliances assigned to a relatively focused set of tasks.
    - eimrine 7mo ago
      You are talking not about Apple's walled garden. Don't confuse a skilled power user with a pesky celebrity who always prefers one button over two buttons because of complexity issue.
      - cosmic_cheese 7mo ago
        I am, though. Someone who uses their phone for mail, chat, music, and calls with everything else being done on a proper computer has little to gain from sideloading, and plenty of computer power users use their phones that way. I know because I’m one of them and something like 70% of my SWE colleagues I’ve known — including Android users — fit that description too. Most have never sideloaded anything and maybe 20% have flashed their phone with an alternative ROM or rooted at some point. An individual being good with computers or even being capable of programming has little bearing on if they’re also a phone power user.
        linuxmobile 7mo ago
        > Most have never sideloaded anything I have never told anyone what I, ahem, install.
4nonverbal-alit 7mo ago
> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? Bold of you assuming they're doing for users. It's fear-mongering at its finest - using the threat of security to install more control that has little to no protection against the said threats. Now you might say it's going to raise the bar for the scammers, but nobody is going to be spending time on writing scam or malware for a few bucks. When the reward is high, they can just pay out already verified developers to distribute their builds under their accounts, or just find a workaround (fake ids?) which could be still way cheaper than the potential revenue potential of a successful attack. It's just an inconvenience that didn't existed before. This is just a policy directly targeting the legit developers distributing apps to work around some of the platform's limitations (ie. uncrappifying youtube). They were previously free to share the workarounds they've developed for themselves since it was just as easy as sharing your APK. Now with added threat of losing your developer account and probably being perma-banned from google, those devs are less likely to continue distributing their workarounds.
charcircuit 7mo ago
People don't want it until they've been scammed. Then they'll complain why you didn't save them.
- cubefox 7mo ago
  Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.
  - DashAnimal 7mo ago
    I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 7mo ago
      >Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on every visitor would be evil, no? I can't think of a better approach.
      - akerl_ 7mo ago
        I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.
        fc417fc802 7mo ago
beacon294 7mo ago
You were wrong at percentage. The question is what count would want this.
throwaway85825 7mo ago
It would be good if there was less malware and outright scams in the play store but that's really orthogonal to the developer verification issue.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Not sure why your observation was received poorly. It's true. If they actually wanted to fight bad actors they could (for example) introduce a voluntary verification program where an app cost $$$ per year to list, is permitted only a fixed number of updates per year, and the uploads are manually audited by an actual person. This would add a second tier to the app store. Just to drive the point home. Not that you would do this but you _could_ even implement such a system fully anonymously - with uploads via tor and payments via XMR - and it should still work just as well. Add in a third even more expensive tier for those providing source code to the auditor where google verifies a signed deterministic build the same way fdroid does. Now clearly mark the three different tiers in the app store. And if they went this route the next logical step for highly sensitive stuff like banking and password management would be a fourth licensed and bonded tier where a verified individual located in a friendly country took on liability for any fraud or other malpractice. That tier would be the equivalent to the situation for civil engineers. Instead we're stuck in a reality where I don't trust sourcing password managers (among other things) from the play store. Those only ever come from fdroid for me - you know, an actually secure model for how to do app distribution and verify builds.
  - realusername 7mo ago
    What you are proposing won't solve anything, the #1 source of malware on Android is Play Store ads, here I said it. And Google benefits financially from the problem.
    - izacus 7mo ago
      You "saying it" doesn't make it true.
      - 7mo ago
WarmWash 7mo ago
It's not about users, it's about a single judges idiotic ruling that Google play store is a monopoly, and the Apple app store is not. Different judge you say? You're right. But when Google in their appeal asked the judge why the app store isn't a monopoly, the judge told Google with a straight face "You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors." Google took note.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
marcprux 7mo ago
> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? 2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1] [^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830 https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830
- akerl_ 7mo ago
  Do we think that maybe the 3,732 people who responded to a poll on Mastodon by an account centered around one side of this disagreement might potentially not be a representative sample of all Android users?
  - jeroenhd 7mo ago
    It's a bit hard to poll 4 billion devices, but out of all 4 billion devices I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of users who do care can be rounded up to maybe 1% at most. Developers and enthusiasts are an extreme minority that's incredibly vocal. I think most people here disagree with Google's approach but too many people are pretending like their interests and use cases are significant on a "half the planet" scale.
- satvikpendem 7mo ago
  Sampling bias.
  - marcprux 7mo ago
    Perhaps. And yet … 98% opposition from 4K respondents? I'd be very surprised to see any other poll that tilts the other way, regardless of sampling bias.
    - warkdarrior 7mo ago
      Does this count? Putin won 88% of the vote in the 2024 Russian election. Not sure of the sampling bias there.
    - akerl_ 7mo ago
skybrian 7mo ago
Pretty much everyone would hate it if a relative lost their life savings to a scammer, though they may not know it yet. The idea isn't to protect the power users or average users. It's to protect the most vulnerable. Android is for everyone. Us power users will have a minor speed bump, but we can deal.
- gumby271 7mo ago
  Android is for everyone, provided they submit to Google exclusively. It's not about power users, and that isn't a speed bump. You can protect vulnerable users without centralizing power like they did, but that's not their motivation so here we are.
  - skybrian 7mo ago
    What's an example of a decentralized system that protects people from scammers?
    - xigoi 7mo ago
      TLS.
    - Cartoxy 7mo ago
      Decentralized PKI
- CivBase 7mo ago
  How very noble of Google /s
- JCTheDenthog 7mo ago
  I would buy this argument if the Play Store wasn't already full of garbage and viruses and scams.
binkHN 7mo ago
Android is becoming more Apple-ized everyday; it's horrible and more and more APIs get neutered or disappear, further limiting functionality available to developers.
- tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
  It's worse than Apple because not only are they locking it down in the same way but the whole thing is funded by adverts.
- unsungNovelty 7mo ago
  Even if Android is as closed as iOS, it will never be the same. Cos business models are different. Google's business is behavioural ads. Apple's is hardware. And even their software services depend on that hardware.
Rohansi 7mo ago
> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? If Apple announced that they were going to allow installing apps like how you can install APKs you will have a whole group of people on here arguing against it because they want Apple to have control over everything. You could have seen those people in action on the Epic v. Apple and Digital Markets Act discussions.
tedk-42 7mo ago
Google/Android don't want AI bots spamming marketplaces with dodgy apps. Tie in the app to a verified identity/individual and it makes the audit process easier as well as engagement with authorities from the user's country if required (e.g. app facilitating child abuse).
- thayne 7mo ago
  But they don't have a problem with using unreliable AI bots to audit apps and deal with support.
- tredre3 7mo ago
  > e.g. app facilitating child abuse I'm going to go on a limb and say that the amount of apps dedicated to facilitating child abuse is close to 0, and the popular apps from verified developers being used for child abuse is close to 100%.
  - pocksuppet 7mo ago
    Session Messenger comes to mind. It's available in the Play Store and also in F-Droid.
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  Of course it’s the apps that checks notes facilitate child abuse.
pocksuppet 7mo ago
Time to switch to Graphene.
izacus 7mo ago
Significantly larger than the number of users wanting to sideload. There are millions of people affected by targeted scams every year, significantly outnumbering the non-developer sideload community. Especially when you take into account that the sideload community doesn't all use Google Android and isn't affected by this.
lern_too_spel 7mo ago
This change on its own doesn't make Google Android builds less open. It does the opposite. Now people can download apps directly from the websites of the publishers without getting a scary warning on Google Android builds. That's all this does. Separately, they're going to increase friction the first time you allow installing apps outside of the Play Store or via this mechanism and also decrease friction on subsequent times, also on Google Android builds.
UncleMeat 7mo ago
I suspect that this is less driven by users and more driven by institutions. Banking trojans distributed via sideloading are a big problem. Banks are unhappy that their users are getting their shit stolen because some other app is squatting on 2fa codes or whatever. They'd rather that their apps are not installed alongside apps that are more likely to be malware given that there isn't a private channel for auth codes for the vast majority of users.

motbus3 7mo ago

But but but it is for your security! You need to be protected! Android isn't open source for a while. They started by pushing device certification which crippled any abilities of OEMs to make a better framework. Then they took many of the opensource packages out of android and redistributed as applications that they controlled via play services. Then they made it harder to publish packages and created tons of rules that they can arbitrarily decide to cut ties with you or remove your remuneration. What they are effectively doing now is to remove any ability of individual developers to push applications. Some will say the costs ain't that high, but (1) maybe not in USD dollars for Americans and (2) both Google and Apple will push those numbers way up high soon. Even if that is not the case, if you don't agree with anything and you decide to have your own version of your family wiki, messenger or anything, they will be able to tell the authorities about it. This is insane....

JLCarveth 7mo ago

Being able to side load apps was why I switched to android 10 years ago

ux266478 7mo ago
Yeah. Computing freedom to have a root shell and do as I please is the entire reason I put up with Android. Google is positioning Android to just be nothing more than a worse iOS. There's pretty much no point to it anymore.
matheusmoreira 7mo ago
Same. If Google does this, my next phone will be an iPhone. Freedom is the only reason to put up with Android's shittiness. If they turn it into a walled garden, then we'll choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't Google's.
- foxes 7mo ago
  What? So you dont value freedom at all? Theres other alternatives too.. graphene, lineage
  - m4rtink 7mo ago
    Sailfish OS - they even run a device preorder right now.
    - anonzzzies 7mo ago
      But is it open? Seems not; parts are closed so is that not just more of the same?
      - fsflover 7mo ago
        postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS are open.
      - m4rtink 7mo ago
        Yeah, some bits (parts of the GUI & some of the default apps) are still closed. But I think there is a good chance they will finally open those now - never really made any sense to keep them closed and preventing the community from contributing. Rumors had it it was due to non-cooperative investors. Not Jolla is finally independent again, so at least in theory they can finally do the right thing. :)
  - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
    GrapheneOS is Android's last hope. They're making great progress with deals with smartphone manufacturers. However, the threat of remote attestation looms eternal. I have essential apps that I cannot afford to lose and if they refuse to work on a non-Google phone the usefulness of GrapheneOS is severely degraded.
tejtm 7mo ago
Please call it what it is and always has been: I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E "side load" is like "jay walking' seeks to stigmatize humans being human.
- tredre3 7mo ago
  When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people. So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Xirdus 7mo ago
    The term jaywalking was invented (or possibly hijacked) by automotive lobbyists as part of a campaign in 1910s and 1920s to convince the public and the lawmakers that crossing streets outside designated points is bad and should be made illegal. Before then, it was generally considered basic human right to walk anywhere on a street. Whether you agree that jaywalking is bad or not, that's the history of the term. Grandparent is saying that the term sideloading was invented in a similar fashion to delegitimize a previously completely normal way to use an electronic device.
  - spaqin 7mo ago
    Yeah, I'm willing to use my brain and look at incoming cars and just walk when it's empty and safe to do so? Where's the problem in that? I have eyes and can judge distance and speed?
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    > Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please In the cities? Yes, absolutely.
  - pjc50 7mo ago
EvanAnderson 7mo ago
I switched from iOS to Android about three years ago. I saved all the APKs for everything I installed (or updated) on that first phone. When I got a new phone last fall it was pleasantly like getting a new PC. I imported my SMS and contacts from my last backup (taken with an open source took I'd installed from an APK), then installed all the apps I use and imported or manually set any settings I wanted to customize. Every non-stock app on my phone was installed from an APK directly downloaded from the manufacturer or open source developer's site / Github releases. I've never had a Google Play account and have never used any Android "app store". The biggest pain was having to manually logon the couple of sites I allow to keep persistent cookies since device owners aren't allowed to just import/export cookies from mobile Chrome. It has been a very nice experience. I appreciate the feeling of sovereignty and ownership of my device (even though it does have a locked bootloader and I don't actually have root). Of course Google would take this away. >sigh<
- wishfish 7mo ago
  I did something similar. Wanted a Pixel with Graphene OS but the screen hurt my eyes. Went with a Motorola with an IPS screen. Uninstalled or disabled all the crap. Never logged into Google. Went with Obtanium and F-Droid for most software. Aurora for a couple of apps that were only on the Play Store. Used NetGuard with a whitelist to lock it all down. After all that was done, the phone felt like mine in a way that my iPhone doesn't. Was a good feeling. With luck, the Motorola + Graphene partnership will produce phones with screens better than the Pixel and I can keep doing this.
  - EvanAnderson 7mo ago
    I ended up with a Motorola phone, too (albeit with an AMOLED screen so not the model you have). I got hooked on Motorola phones because of the "chop/chop" flashlight gesture. I don't think I can use a phone without that gesture ever again! >smile< I'm hopeful, too, re: Motorola + Graphene. I wanted to use Graphene last fall wehn I got the new phone but I was committed to not giving Google any money.
  - drnick1 7mo ago

cosmotic 7mo ago

Rounded to the nearest percent, I'd guess power users make up 0% of android user base.

eimrine 7mo ago
And what is your view on the percentage of power users among iphone user base? Also zero? One hundred? So interesting.
- cosmic_cheese 7mo ago
  The share of power users on iOS might be larger than expected because a lot of people working in tech fight computers for a living and prefer their phones to be simple appliances assigned to a relatively focused set of tasks.
  - eimrine 7mo ago
    You are talking not about Apple's walled garden. Don't confuse a skilled power user with a pesky celebrity who always prefers one button over two buttons because of complexity issue.
    - cosmic_cheese 7mo ago
      I am, though. Someone who uses their phone for mail, chat, music, and calls with everything else being done on a proper computer has little to gain from sideloading, and plenty of computer power users use their phones that way. I know because I’m one of them and something like 70% of my SWE colleagues I’ve known — including Android users — fit that description too. Most have never sideloaded anything and maybe 20% have flashed their phone with an alternative ROM or rooted at some point. An individual being good with computers or even being capable of programming has little bearing on if they’re also a phone power user.
      - linuxmobile 7mo ago
        > Most have never sideloaded anything I have never told anyone what I, ahem, install.

4nonverbal-alit 7mo ago

> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? Bold of you assuming they're doing for users. It's fear-mongering at its finest - using the threat of security to install more control that has little to no protection against the said threats. Now you might say it's going to raise the bar for the scammers, but nobody is going to be spending time on writing scam or malware for a few bucks. When the reward is high, they can just pay out already verified developers to distribute their builds under their accounts, or just find a workaround (fake ids?) which could be still way cheaper than the potential revenue potential of a successful attack. It's just an inconvenience that didn't existed before. This is just a policy directly targeting the legit developers distributing apps to work around some of the platform's limitations (ie. uncrappifying youtube). They were previously free to share the workarounds they've developed for themselves since it was just as easy as sharing your APK. Now with added threat of losing your developer account and probably being perma-banned from google, those devs are less likely to continue distributing their workarounds.

charcircuit 7mo ago

People don't want it until they've been scammed. Then they'll complain why you didn't save them.

cubefox 7mo ago
Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.
- DashAnimal 7mo ago
  I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 7mo ago
    >Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on every visitor would be evil, no? I can't think of a better approach.
    - akerl_ 7mo ago
      I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago

beacon294 7mo ago

You were wrong at percentage. The question is what count would want this.

throwaway85825 7mo ago

It would be good if there was less malware and outright scams in the play store but that's really orthogonal to the developer verification issue.

fc417fc802 7mo ago
Not sure why your observation was received poorly. It's true. If they actually wanted to fight bad actors they could (for example) introduce a voluntary verification program where an app cost $$$ per year to list, is permitted only a fixed number of updates per year, and the uploads are manually audited by an actual person. This would add a second tier to the app store. Just to drive the point home. Not that you would do this but you _could_ even implement such a system fully anonymously - with uploads via tor and payments via XMR - and it should still work just as well. Add in a third even more expensive tier for those providing source code to the auditor where google verifies a signed deterministic build the same way fdroid does. Now clearly mark the three different tiers in the app store. And if they went this route the next logical step for highly sensitive stuff like banking and password management would be a fourth licensed and bonded tier where a verified individual located in a friendly country took on liability for any fraud or other malpractice. That tier would be the equivalent to the situation for civil engineers. Instead we're stuck in a reality where I don't trust sourcing password managers (among other things) from the play store. Those only ever come from fdroid for me - you know, an actually secure model for how to do app distribution and verify builds.
- realusername 7mo ago
  What you are proposing won't solve anything, the #1 source of malware on Android is Play Store ads, here I said it. And Google benefits financially from the problem.
  - izacus 7mo ago
    You "saying it" doesn't make it true.
    - 7mo ago

WarmWash 7mo ago

It's not about users, it's about a single judges idiotic ruling that Google play store is a monopoly, and the Apple app store is not. Different judge you say? You're right. But when Google in their appeal asked the judge why the app store isn't a monopoly, the judge told Google with a straight face "You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors." Google took note.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

marcprux 7mo ago

> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? 2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1] [^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830 https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830

akerl_ 7mo ago
Do we think that maybe the 3,732 people who responded to a poll on Mastodon by an account centered around one side of this disagreement might potentially not be a representative sample of all Android users?
- jeroenhd 7mo ago
  It's a bit hard to poll 4 billion devices, but out of all 4 billion devices I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of users who do care can be rounded up to maybe 1% at most. Developers and enthusiasts are an extreme minority that's incredibly vocal. I think most people here disagree with Google's approach but too many people are pretending like their interests and use cases are significant on a "half the planet" scale.
satvikpendem 7mo ago
Sampling bias.
- marcprux 7mo ago
  Perhaps. And yet … 98% opposition from 4K respondents? I'd be very surprised to see any other poll that tilts the other way, regardless of sampling bias.
  - warkdarrior 7mo ago
    Does this count? Putin won 88% of the vote in the 2024 Russian election. Not sure of the sampling bias there.
  - akerl_ 7mo ago

skybrian 7mo ago

Pretty much everyone would hate it if a relative lost their life savings to a scammer, though they may not know it yet. The idea isn't to protect the power users or average users. It's to protect the most vulnerable. Android is for everyone. Us power users will have a minor speed bump, but we can deal.

gumby271 7mo ago
Android is for everyone, provided they submit to Google exclusively. It's not about power users, and that isn't a speed bump. You can protect vulnerable users without centralizing power like they did, but that's not their motivation so here we are.
- skybrian 7mo ago
  What's an example of a decentralized system that protects people from scammers?
  - xigoi 7mo ago
    TLS.
  - Cartoxy 7mo ago
    Decentralized PKI
CivBase 7mo ago
How very noble of Google /s
JCTheDenthog 7mo ago
I would buy this argument if the Play Store wasn't already full of garbage and viruses and scams.

binkHN 7mo ago

Android is becoming more Apple-ized everyday; it's horrible and more and more APIs get neutered or disappear, further limiting functionality available to developers.

tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
It's worse than Apple because not only are they locking it down in the same way but the whole thing is funded by adverts.
unsungNovelty 7mo ago
Even if Android is as closed as iOS, it will never be the same. Cos business models are different. Google's business is behavioural ads. Apple's is hardware. And even their software services depend on that hardware.

Rohansi 7mo ago

> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? If Apple announced that they were going to allow installing apps like how you can install APKs you will have a whole group of people on here arguing against it because they want Apple to have control over everything. You could have seen those people in action on the Epic v. Apple and Digital Markets Act discussions.

tedk-42 7mo ago

Google/Android don't want AI bots spamming marketplaces with dodgy apps. Tie in the app to a verified identity/individual and it makes the audit process easier as well as engagement with authorities from the user's country if required (e.g. app facilitating child abuse).

thayne 7mo ago
But they don't have a problem with using unreliable AI bots to audit apps and deal with support.
tredre3 7mo ago
> e.g. app facilitating child abuse I'm going to go on a limb and say that the amount of apps dedicated to facilitating child abuse is close to 0, and the popular apps from verified developers being used for child abuse is close to 100%.
- pocksuppet 7mo ago
  Session Messenger comes to mind. It's available in the Play Store and also in F-Droid.
wiseowise 7mo ago
Of course it’s the apps that checks notes facilitate child abuse.

pocksuppet 7mo ago

Time to switch to Graphene.

izacus 7mo ago

Significantly larger than the number of users wanting to sideload. There are millions of people affected by targeted scams every year, significantly outnumbering the non-developer sideload community. Especially when you take into account that the sideload community doesn't all use Google Android and isn't affected by this.

lern_too_spel 7mo ago

This change on its own doesn't make Google Android builds less open. It does the opposite. Now people can download apps directly from the websites of the publishers without getting a scary warning on Google Android builds. That's all this does. Separately, they're going to increase friction the first time you allow installing apps outside of the Play Store or via this mechanism and also decrease friction on subsequent times, also on Google Android builds.

UncleMeat 7mo ago

I suspect that this is less driven by users and more driven by institutions. Banking trojans distributed via sideloading are a big problem. Banks are unhappy that their users are getting their shit stolen because some other app is squatting on 2fa codes or whatever. They'd rather that their apps are not installed alongside apps that are more likely to be malware given that there isn't a private channel for auth codes for the vast majority of users.