3 ms·

This is the most important part: >> Developers Do not sign up. Don't join the program by signing up for the Android Developer Console and agreeing to their

by karlzt 5mo ago

This is the most important part: >> Developers Do not sign up. Don't join the program by signing up for the Android Developer Console and agreeing to their irrevocable Terms and Conditions. Don't verify your identity. Don't play ball. Google's plan only works if developers comply. Don't. Talk other developers and organizations out of signing up. Add the FreeDroidWarn library to your apps to warn users. Run a website? Add the countdown banner.

jdthedisciple 5mo ago
Unfortunately not gonna work. Developers either want to make money or work for someone who wants to make money. In either case they will be forced to.
rubymamis 5mo ago
That's not the solution - developers or businesses are squeezed into signing up anyway to survive/make a profit. The only viable alternative is to create an alternative - Linux phones.
- palata 5mo ago
  I agree. There isn't even a need to create alternative OSes: they exist. Be it Linux phones or (more realistically for the vast majority of users) AOSP-based OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS. The real problem is that: 1. Most manufacturers prevent us from unlocking the bootloader, adding custom signing keys and relocking it. Interestingly the Google Pixels allow that. This should be mandatory. 2. Many apps choose to ban alternative OSes by use of Play Integrity, i.e. checking that the OS is signed by Google. This should be illegal. 3. Bonus: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it reasonably easy to support from an alternative OS. That means publishing device trees, for instance. This should be mandatory. I really believe we should fight for that. Then we wouldn't have to care about what Google does on their side.
simpaticoder 5mo ago
This is the part that makes the least sense. It shows a profound lack of empathy. For many devs this is equivalent to saying "Give up your livelihood to show you support this principle, that will likely have little to no effect". This is advice aimed at wealthy hobbyists. What's worse is that it's not even a principled view. If you really don't trust Google, then you shouldn't rely on Google's software no matter what policies they change or promises they make. The problem is actually far more profound, that citizens are now expected to have a closed smartphone from one of the duopolies which government and corporate entities need to trust, which means they cannot allow it to be entirely your device. This is a tacit policy that must be defeated as a policy matter.
- newsy-combi 5mo ago
  Lack of empathy better describes Google's psychopathic pursuit of ever more control over its users, while the products get ever more enshittified of course.
  - Hugsun 5mo ago
    Two things can be true at once.
mironathetin 5mo ago
I think you are right and I voted your contribution up. But you don't really think it will work? Developers were kings once. Big companies turned them into slaves.
newsy-combi 5mo ago
Lots of nay-sayers to this, but yes, strikes do work and it's one of the very few real tools for change that people have.

by karlzt 5mo ago

jdthedisciple 5mo ago

Unfortunately not gonna work. Developers either want to make money or work for someone who wants to make money. In either case they will be forced to.

rubymamis 5mo ago

That's not the solution - developers or businesses are squeezed into signing up anyway to survive/make a profit. The only viable alternative is to create an alternative - Linux phones.

palata 5mo ago
I agree. There isn't even a need to create alternative OSes: they exist. Be it Linux phones or (more realistically for the vast majority of users) AOSP-based OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS. The real problem is that: 1. Most manufacturers prevent us from unlocking the bootloader, adding custom signing keys and relocking it. Interestingly the Google Pixels allow that. This should be mandatory. 2. Many apps choose to ban alternative OSes by use of Play Integrity, i.e. checking that the OS is signed by Google. This should be illegal. 3. Bonus: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it reasonably easy to support from an alternative OS. That means publishing device trees, for instance. This should be mandatory. I really believe we should fight for that. Then we wouldn't have to care about what Google does on their side.

simpaticoder 5mo ago

This is the part that makes the least sense. It shows a profound lack of empathy. For many devs this is equivalent to saying "Give up your livelihood to show you support this principle, that will likely have little to no effect". This is advice aimed at wealthy hobbyists. What's worse is that it's not even a principled view. If you really don't trust Google, then you shouldn't rely on Google's software no matter what policies they change or promises they make. The problem is actually far more profound, that citizens are now expected to have a closed smartphone from one of the duopolies which government and corporate entities need to trust, which means they cannot allow it to be entirely your device. This is a tacit policy that must be defeated as a policy matter.

newsy-combi 5mo ago
Lack of empathy better describes Google's psychopathic pursuit of ever more control over its users, while the products get ever more enshittified of course.
- Hugsun 5mo ago
  Two things can be true at once.

mironathetin 5mo ago

I think you are right and I voted your contribution up. But you don't really think it will work? Developers were kings once. Big companies turned them into slaves.

newsy-combi 5mo ago

Lots of nay-sayers to this, but yes, strikes do work and it's one of the very few real tools for change that people have.