I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them. That ship may have sailed for ios but it hasn't for android yet.
This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
I'm all for alternatives like linux phones but it's not realistic in the timeframe. It will be a sad day if this comes to pass without least bit of resistance.
If you sell your new platform as "open" to gain market share and then break that promise of openness after you successfully drive competing platforms out of the market, that sounds a lot like fraudulent marketing to me.
Yeah I mean it's literally what the term "open source rugpull" means. Every business will ultimately renege on their open source promises. It's literally against their fiduciary duty to shareholders not to, once they've run out of actual growth ideas. Even if current management is idealistic, eventually, they will be replaced with "real leaders" who know that they need to make money.
But, ideally, it's not that big a deal, because the community (or even newer non-calcified businesses) can fork the last open source branch and continue development.
Unfortunately, with something as complex as an OS, that's incredibly difficult. It does seem regrettably unlikely that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no practically usable open-source phone OSes.
The mild response shouldn't surprise you. I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Apple controls ridiculous detail of your application and there are many developers who think that it is necessary for Apple to keep the high quality of iOS.
Actually I was shocked when one of my coworkers told me that it is a very good idea and Google should have done it sooner.
> I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Those users knew in advance what they were buying into, since Apple was honest about the nature of the platform they were offering for sale.
Google's Android customers, in contrast, were lied to -- and it's solely Google's fault that Google lied about Android being both open to running any software you like and open source.
Everyone should have spoken up when they first started moving necessary developer APIs into the Play Store.
> Google's Android customers, in contrast, were lied to
They were, but I think for most users this is a sort of technical lie that they don't really care about, like if a restaurant says you can choose one of these four side dishes and when you ask for the onion rings they say they're out. I'm often hair-raisingly stunned at how little concern, or even awareness, people have about issues of privacy and user control.
> Everyone should have spoken up when they first started moving necessary developer APIs into the Play Store.
No, people needed to speak up long before then. They needed to speak up as soon as the iOS/Android duopoly began to emerge, as soon as advertising began to shift to Facebook, as soon as brick-and-mortar video rental stores started to close, and a million other things like that. The issue is that we have allowed a small number of companies to control too much infrastructure that too many people depend on too much. With that power they will find a way to screw us. If it wasn't this it would have been something else, and if there are workarounds or walkbacks on this it will still be something else later. The only way forward is wholesale dismantling of the system that has led to this. Unfortunately a lot of people would rather have convenience.
> They needed to speak up as soon as the iOS/Android duopoly began to emerge
Android drove the other options out of the market because of Google's fraudulent marketing about giving users the freedom to run anything they liked and being open source.
The fraudulent marketing came first, and truly open Linux based options previously in development were the casualties.
> for most users this is a sort of technical lie that they don't really care about
People have been going on about Android being open and iOS being a closed walled garden for as long as both platforms have existed.
The excuse making about Android becoming a walled garden, so walled gardens are OK now started only after Google altered the bargain.
>This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
You and me don't get a vote on the Google board. The current government is not what I'd call fiercely pro-consumer. People say that money talks, but what's really in this season is tacky golden bribes; not an area where consumer advocates have a comparative advantage.
Raising awareness for a change that Google is already communicating widely and openly, is unlikely to scare Google very much.
If you want to take this seriously, it's going to need something beyond the usual token resistance that consists of angry social media posts.
The solution here is to reject Google devices and switch to AOSP-derived distributions like Graphene and Lineage that patch out such arbitrary restrictions. You can buy a Pixel (ironically), flash GrapheneOS, and enjoy a phone that runs most Android apps without giving Google any of your data.
Until the government labels the use of Graphene as suspicious behavior, dragnets all alternative OS supporters, and wiretaps communications solely based on the fact that "'terrorists' use GrapheneOS".
Eventually we see a Chat Control esque law outright banning unapproved operating systems or unlocking devices. The authoritarian ratchet turns slowly but steadily, even as you sleep.
And all of the big tech corps support this vision of the future. Apple, Google Microsoft, Meta... They all release locked-down hardware and software, and have so far been on board with the convergence towards unmodifiable trusted computing. This may accelerate as local AI inference becomes commonplace and CorpGov demands unmodifiable safety controls that mediate the use of onboard models.
They're slowly tightening the screws on alternative Android builds as well. Most recently they removed distribution of factory builds for Pixels, which are used for figuring out drivers and such.
They're also literally just not pushing code to AOSP anymore. QPR1 still isn't available. It probably will be, eventually, but this year it's two months late, next year it's six months late, then nine months, then "eventually" and then finally only to OEMs.
I don't think Google looks at any of these forks as threats; they just don't care.
because everyone here didn't care when bigtech was killing gpl. heck, most people here will still defend mit/bsd while crying that google is taking their linux device to themselves.
this solution is not available to the majority of people. ok, well, they could buy a phone from china with a chinese android version. but i don't know if i would want that either.
Honestly just asking what good is Android certification on a device that has no network access?
Turn certification off and your... banking apps... and wireless pay... and play store... and online game cheat detectors... stop working? That you... already weren't using apparently because you have no network?
Sorry, I'm having a really the hard time following the use case behind the outrage here.
Everyone is mad because they won't have Android certification on devices that can't benefit from Android certification?
Outside of regulation, or a large portion of users switching to better, freer alternatives, I think the question is quickly going to become: how can we get around this and other identity verification nonsense?
"I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them"
Some might argue the corporate OS[1] user never had "control of [their] devices"
As in the past, more hassles are to come for Android users, but some might doubt this idea that users currently have control or ever had control
Why the hassles
Because the user has no control over the OS
The corporation might increase or decrease the hassles, making users happy or unhappy (or indifferent), but either way the user never has control
In a non-corporate OS the user can generally edit the OS to her liking
Introducing hassles in a non-corporate would cause users who were annoyed to remove them
In other words, if users choose a non-corporate OS where users have control then there is no need to "raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice"
1. For example, the ones from Silicon Valley and Redmond
I use Android over iphone precisely because I'm free to install whatever apps I want.
With this planned change my reasons to ditch Android and go to Apple increase dramatically. Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Sucks for the people who can't afford an Apple device and honestly sucks for all of us who enjoyed installing all kinds of apps on our devices.
Combined with bad security practice from OEMs, preinstalled bloatware, app fragmentation (I love having Samsung "Phone" app and stock phone app at the same time) and customer service (try replacing your phone battery and compare the experience of ubreakifix and Apple store), I don't see a reason to go Android.
(P.S. people who cannot afford the latest iPhone can always purchase a two year old used/"refurbished" phone. It's a solid choice and many people do that. The fact that you can now add Apple Care to 4 year old device makes this more viable.)
I must live in a parallel world because here it’s significantly easier to get an Android phone fixed than an iPhone. Plus you don’t have to pay Apple extortionate price for parts.
In the US, replacing a Samsung phone battery is not any cheaper than iPhone, and likely you'll get the phone next day unless you show up at the repair shop at 8am. Apple store? Just walk in one and you'll get it done in 1-2 hours.
It looks like Apple would charge $89 to replace a battery in my iPhone 13 Pro. I tried to find the price Samsung would charge for my wife's S21 but I had no luck (their site and SEO is a disaster). Is it much less than $89?
You can get the S22 repaired with no loss of functionality for significantly less than that if you go to another repairer and even the official channel is cheaper despite the S22 having a bigger battery than the 13 Mini.
And that’s for battery. Just take a look at screen repair if you want to cry.
Is this freedom? Man you need to go into some lengths just to power up your piece of equipment. Next step is to be required to provide some biometry just to use a wall socket for the sake of protecting some children from electrocuting.
Not "always", Apple doesn't provide official warranty in my country, and even replacing batteries carries significant risk. Forget about more involved types of servicing. There are lots of places like that.
I feel sorry for you. I have experienced their support in both Germany and The Netherlands and it's stellar. You can call them, get someone on the line in a few minutes and they will genuinely try to help you. One time there was an issue with a transaction (amount subtracted twice), within a few minutes of calling I was in contact with someone from their finance department who not only solved the issue, they also called back a few days later to verify that I got the refund and to check if I was happy with their help.
Another time my wife wanted Apple Care, but decided on the last day and the website didn't offer the option anymore. She called, they were really helpful and again called back a few days later to check everything is good on our end.
They are a big-tech company, but actually being able to call someone and getting swift help is refreshing.
Edit: I only now realize the accidental pun: you probably won't be getting 'Swift' help. :p
Yeah, this is exactly my reasoning too. And with Google making it harder for OSes like GrapheneOS to run on Pixel devices, my next device will have to be an Apple one. There's nothing left in the Android ecosystem for me.
Yup, same here. I've even talked family members into joining me. If this goes through and locks me out of installing things that aren't officially signed, I'll be done with Android.
At least, the standard version. If Samsung or someone keeps it open, I'd probably move to that.
I have an iphone and I feel a frequent nagging in the back of my head to switch to android despite the serious created by ecosystem lock-in and it's solely for the benefit of sideloading. Like you said, why would I leave apple's refined and increasingly customizable walled garden for google's half-assed one? Especially when Google is explicitly an ad company (I know apple isn't that much better).
Why go from a devil to another? Consider Ubuntu Touch it's actually pretty good and the dev community is really welcoming. Feel like the old school linux groups.
I am out of the loop with the entire thing. I used to an android dev back then. Google's shenanigans is the reason why I left mobile dev. Does this mean I cannot even compile and install apps on my phone from android studio?
So I can just adb install any apk I want, no matter if it's a Google authenticated developer who signed the app? So f-droid would continue to work fine so long as they install via adb instead of the intent mechanism or whatever it currently is?
AFAIU your device will no longer pass their treacherous "Play Integrity", which means that many banking and government applications will no longer work. For me it's a complete deal breaker because that's 99% of why I own a smartphone at all.
Apple is prohibitively expensive here, there's no official warranty and much difficulty with doing quality battery replacements, so I will probably have to own two phones.
It seems that won't affect Play Integrity for now. But I wonder if we'll eventually see rooted (GrapheneOS etc.) phones installing patches to banking apps to fool them into thinking they're legit. Hacked Nintendo Switches already do something similar.
In case there's a misunderstanding, GrapheneOS doesn't provide root access, and fooling apps won't be possible as the platform keeps moving towards stronger hardware attestation.
However banks can use the hardware attestation API instead of Play Integrity API to allow alternative distributions like GrapheneOS [1]. All of my financial apps happen to work on GrapheneOS.
That's available right now as Frida plugins etc. The problem is that remote attestation is done on the server and bank backend API would be able to call Google Play API to check the attestation and deny access. Nothing you can patch on the app side could change that.
That's not true - you can enable developer mode and install apps via ADB without affecting Play Integrity for other apps on your device. You can test this today.
Play Integrity is focused on checking the OS is original and the runtime environment of the app (your banking app in this case) isn't being messed with. Installing other apps as a developer isn't related to that. If you're not flashing a custom OS or modifying your bank's APK you'll be fine.
(You _should_ be able to use custom OSs and Play Integrity is awful, to be clear - but not because of anything directly relate to normal app development & sideloading)
In the newest android there is now an option to enable a "Linux development environment" AKA crostini for Android.
It works the same way, there is a Linux terminal application that runs Debian inside a VM. They recently added a button to launch a display window. This then functions as your "monitor" and applications you launch that provide a GUI display there.
Still experimenting with it not clear if you can launch android inside that with waydroid or similar
The terminal has a nasty bug where sometimes it starts typing a bunch of stuff with each keypress. The only way to fix it that i found is to close the terminal, which isn't much of a fix
You can. Install a work profile on the device (You can use a third party app like Island) to do this. Then you can install apps into their own sandbox.
I do have work profile, and used it in the past, but as soon as you really want to use it as work profile, then some admin program would like to take over your phone, and not just your work profile - so no "dev mode", etc. (Or maybe I have old info... not sure).
The target is more the likes of f-droid or the Amazon Store or Epic going "We don't like the Play Store policy, download Fortnite.apk from us", than developers compiling stuff and loading them on their own phone
Same. Going to go for the prettier jailed garden instead of the uglier one. Can pay the cost of ugly with freedom. But if you are gonna get jailed anyways, why not choose the one with better interior decoration ?
I too am considering that. I give up many smartphone benefits in the name of privacy and control, but if open source Android withers, then I'm going to shift to choosing quality and service.
Since the 6s, iPhones get 6 or 7 versions of iOS (including their release version), which puts them at about 7-8 years of full support less whatever features (like Apple Intelligence) don't get support on some hardware. Before the 6s, it was lower but the hardware was also changing a lot faster (like going from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM).
But for security updates they've pushed it up to 10 years. The 6s, 2015, got a security update this month.
They're actively supporting (at least security updates) iOS 15, 16, 18, and now of course 26. 17 was skipped because no devices lost support with it, everything that could run 17 can run 18.
Well to be fair even if Android were completely open: In the US, your phone is still beholden to small number carriers. They get to decide what devices can connect to their network. This determines much of the hardware and software of the phones on their networks.
So ultimately they own the devices that connect to them. That's why I've already stopped paying for phones and just get free ones when offered. If I do pay for one again it'll just be the cheapest Chinese one available.
Same boat. Wouldn't be hard to switch either - Android and iOS are virtually indistinguishable on the UI side now. That was the last thing holding me back.
> Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Can’t disagree more.
Android has both better phones and better UX. Apple is usually lagging the Asian brands by years.
I went from a Pixel 3A to an iPhone 13 and just switched back to a Pixel 10 Pro and gosh the iPhone was a complete wreck. It’s even worse with their new UI.
Unless you are somehow stuck in the Apple ecosystem, I don’t understand why people pay more for it. The idea than the Android experience is somehow subpar when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it is crazy to me.
Apple has Apple Silicon, designers of the most advanced ARM processors in the world. The latest iPhone is usually about twice as fast as the latest flagship from Google or Samsung. And that's not even factoring in the performance benefits of native-compiled, static-lifetime languages like Objective-C and Swift compared to Android's Java and Dalvik/ART based ecosystem.
> The latest iPhone is usually about twice as fast as the latest flagship from Google or Samsung
So my text messages will arrive twice as fast to the destination? Or phone calls will be two times shorter? Or I will read HN comment twice as fast while taking shit? Or the route found by Google Maps will have two times less traffic lights?
Nobody cares about how fast their phone cpu is. My iPhone 13 was significantly less performant than a top of the line modern Qualcomm CPU and never felt slow. Apple chips are also no more twice as fast as the competitions. The gap has been smaller for years.
If that’s all you have, you have basically nothing.
Only the experience matters and the iPhone UX is strictly inferior to the competition. Battery life is worse, camera is worse, screen is worse. So happy I switched and really regret ever trying buying one.
> Android has nothing equivalent to AirPods, airdrop, find my, list goes on and on.
Sony has a product which is considerably better than the AirPods and the Pixel Buds are competitive.
Google has an alternative to Find my which works the same and allows to use trackers from multiple brands, including some which are better than AirTag.
Android has a default feature called nearby share which works the same and has had sharing via WiFi for much longer than Apple including some options which are not annoyingly gimped proprietary technology.
It’s always the same issue with Apple fan. They are completely unaware of how far behind Apple is because they don’t want to even look outside.
Just for folks reading this and being unfamiliar with Apple's options, here are some of their capabilities that sets them apart in a UX way:
AirPods: can simultainiously be paired with iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad and Mac. The switching between the audio you hear is fully automated and generally "just works" using sensors on both the AirPods and your 'source device'. e.g. listen to audio from your mac, but get a call? You can 'just pick it up' without any Bluetooth hassling or switching.
AirDrop: the hardware Wifi chips in your device actually gets configured in a peer to peer mode that enables (very) high capacity transfers. Think of pushing multiple gigabytes. It does not require any configuration, the devices can figure it out themselves if nearby and unlocked. It also works between Mac's, iPads and iPhones.
Find My: It's not just for devices, you can share your location with family and friends, with reasonable control over things like 'for how long'. You can set alerts for leaving or arriving a particular location (Apple informs both parties of such geofencing). It also integrates with the workout app or navigation app, e.g. keeping folks updated on the ETA.
Virtually all descend brands support multiple pairing and fast switching nowadays. This is not a AirPods advantage. AirPods miserably fail at this as soon as you use them on anything non Apple.
Nearby Share works exactly the same than AirDrop with regards to pair to pair mode on supporting device. It also works on anything supporting one of its client which covers a lot of material.
Find my: Google has exactly the same functionality and has had it for years.
You are completely disconnected from the state of the art. Meanwhile it’s 2025 and iOS still can’t properly deal with notifications.
I have a bluetooth headset from 2017 right next to me that did just that, it could be paired and connect to obher devices.
Wifi direct. Apple didn't invent it. Android also does that. Also that's now also an optional part of the bluetooth spec (to use the wifi radio as well)
Apple is not more reliable. Their fan boys are just convinced they somehow use magic while all they have is a pair of buds which can only properly work with one brand.
Multiple pairing and fast switching have worked correctly for ages on multiple brands but they are completely unaware.
I was an iPhone user from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, when the iTunes backup from my failed iPhone 4S wouldn't restore to an iPhone SE (it made the phone boot loop) I got frustrated and went Android.
I decided to "sideload" all non-stock software on my Android phone. I never have setup a Google Play account. I kept all the APKs for the software I loaded over the years that I used that phone.
I just got a new Android phone a couple of weeks ago. I was able to just load all the software I use day-to-day from APKs (except for a few that are, apparently, processor-specific). I imported my SMS, contacts, and call logs using a nice FOSS app[0]. It felt remarkably like moving to a new PC does. It was nice.
I am really sad Google is ending this moving forward. Jackasses.
I got a new Android phone recently as well. I am trying to see how far I can get without signing into a Google or Motorola (this is a Motorola phone) account. So far so good. I can't download any apps from the app store that were not already included when I activated the phone but I can use fdroid so I am good for the most part.
I'm using a Motorola phone myself and I'm having great luck with it. Newer stuff is coming in XAPK format packages and I've had no luck side loading any of those apps. So far I've been able to do without so it hasn't been a problem, just an annoyance.
I recently joined it as I hated feeling powerless about this change in Android. Becoming one more working on a third option is very freeing. I'd recommend it, plus Ubuntu Touch is surprisingly a nice OS.
Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-competitive?"
It's no surprise that Google will start mirroring Apple more if closed ecosystems cannot be monopolies.
If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply.
Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions.
If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions.
That's how the existing law works.
If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.
I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil.
Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so.
"Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%."
The government isn't worried about control, but economics.
Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.)
As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.
It just keeps getting worse. I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys. It is incredibly frustrating watching this play out without having an alternative to migrate to.
Because it’s one thing to publicly show what you want and another to be forced to show everything that you have because you’re not a terrorist, are you? Have you though if children?
> I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys.
This was always the plan. Co-opt FLOSS with services running on FLOSS platforms that are not, themselves, FLOSS. Make it insanely unattractive to run actual FLOSS services on the otherwise FLOSS platform. At that point, it might as well be what Apple does.
There's a reason why rms was insistent upon GPL, but he never did have a real answer to that sort of corporate behavior.
It would be righteous for it to destroy all of Android, not just its ecosystem.
The obvious alternative is Linux phones. Granted, the tech sets us back by maybe two decades, but at least we're almost at the stage where we can rapidfire develop our own apps or open source apps using LLM assistance.
I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly). I really wish I could use GrapheneOS on non-Google hardware.
> I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly).
I see it a bit differently: Google will be fine without me. But I can contribute to GrapheneOS. So I may as well have a Pixel and donate to GrapheneOS.
Graphene is planning to make their own phone though, so that may work for you. I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
> Graphene is planning to make their own phone though
I don't think it will be their own phone, and I hope they don't go down that route.
They are talking with an OEM to help them increase their security to reach the requirements of GrapheneOS, at which point GrapheneOS will be able to support those non-Pixel phones.
> I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
Same here. I've been a user of /e/OS for 4.5 years. I have come to the conclusion that the only Android system worth its while in terms of security is GrapheneOS. If it wasn't for it, I would go with an iPhone. And I do avoid TooBigTech as much as I can (I even self-host some stuff for that). But the hardware situation is the way it is, and the Pixels are simply superior at the moment.
The survival of GrapheneOS is far from guaranteed for multiple reasons, but sure, it's nice while it lasts and stays updated with patches. I think Graphene might benefit from having additional hardware interoperability, and additional security layers that defend it even in the face of delayed patches from upstream.
Sure, but the survival of any Mobile Linux doesn't have better odds.
The way I see it, the more support GrapheneOS gets, the higher the likelihood it survives. The goal is to reach a point where Android manufacturers consider that they lose money if they don't reach the requirements of GrapheneOS, because enough people care about them.
The chipmakers. In my dystopia, there are military permanently stationed at all of them, making sure that nothing gets out of there that can run unauthorized OSes or LLMs. Innovation Force.
A key question here is if installation of Google Apps can fail verification if the device is offline, or if they have some magic local public key chain of pre-authed all OK keys.
DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED is very clearly the purpose of the whole thing. Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
> Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
Your "presumably" is doing a _lot_ of work; these strings are from the PackageInstaller, and go along with all of the other reasons you can't install an APK.
Historically, apps that were pulled from the Play Store and developer accounts revoked due to malware do _not_ affect apps on the end-user device, and there's no current sign of this changing with this specific project. Google have generally achieved this goal using Play Protect, the separate app/service which _can_ download revocation lists and signal end-users to delete malicious apps, and there's no indication this will change.
Android has a bunch of special signing keys (vendor, Google, that kind of thing) that get special treatment. I assume the same will apply here.
I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked, blocking malware shops is the entire point.
Installations failing because of a network problem is different, though. The Android ecosystem can trivially leverage the existing app certificates + occasionally updated CRLs to verify app developers. Android needing to call to the net before installing an APK seems over the top.
> I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked...
for building an alternative YouTube frontend. Or a torrenting app. Or due to sanctions / trade wars. (If you think these can't happen to you personally, imagine a Mega-Trump who's even Trumpier than Trump getting elected US president.)
What's malware to Google isn't necessarily malware to the user.
It will work the same way Play Protect does for blocking installation of malware. I don't think it will trigger on already installed apps, as I think package verifies require an actual update to the apk before they will trigger.
Yes, so much for portability, the portability ship now is in the hand of two corporates, that do not care about what a user wants. The convenience, it offers, depends on the profitability of these corporates.
Well, I do not want to just in to one walled garden to another, so, I think, this is the end of portable devices for me. That is the stick, that Google and Apple both using to keep us in their hands, so, I'm going to do my best to say: No thank you, and F*ck off.
I might not ever buy a flagship or high-end smartphone anymore, but get a smaller laptop, and keep an old or cheap Android handy, which will have very little personal data in it. I can easily tether the Laptop with my mobile and do most of the things that are needed.
Yes, for bank applications, and some other applications, that requires app, I will keep the cheap Android handy. But, it not a personal device anymore, the thing that I loved about Android, it's just there, because it has to.
And I am done with a mobile device till a true Linux based mobile become available.
I really hope this will be the final straw to break the camel’s back and people will see that native platforms bring nothing but lock in and misery (I’m an Android native developer, don’t bother telling me about “native experience”).
At this point, the only reason I have an Android phone is GrapheneOS. Fortunately it is not impacted by this. The day Google manages to make GrapheneOS unusable, I'm off to the iPhone.
This is my plan as well. If we loose the ability to run GrapheneOS, I'll get an iphone and treat it as a locked down home router, and use a linux phone with open source apps for my calls/messaging.
I will also do everything in my power to halt support for Android in favor of web apps. No sense duplicating work for two separate platforms if one is just a crappy clone of another.
As long as any old apk can be installed over ADB, f-droid just needs to release a desktop app, and I'm gtg. Yeah, it's a little inconvenient, and hopefully just a stopgap until Linux phones are viable, but still better than Apple.
It means users without a PC won't have this possibility. You will not be able to do squat if you are mobile-only. Maybe not a major change for us here but a dealbreaker for the majority.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
It's not like Android and iOS are the only options exactly.
So I never spend much on phones, but I just got a Fairphone 4 running E/OS , which is .... like running android, except it blocks tracking by default, and you're in control. Some fairphones come with e/os pre-installed, but installing it isn't even all too fiddly, you can do it direct from chrome(ium).
And you can take it apart with your fingers and a screwdriver!
They _are_ the only options if you want banking to work reliably, which is essential for me at least due to 3DS requiring mobile app verification for transactions. I have to run stock android for pretty much this reason only. Everything else I could manage with, but not being locked out of certain banks.
I've been in IT long enough to recognize this pattern. Every "convenient" lock-in becomes an expensive problem later - something you're definitely experiencing now!
My advice: don't get locked in in the first place yesterday. Or second best, start exploring ways out today. Push back on your bank - odds are they simply haven't had enough complaints yet. Demand alternate authentication methods. Fall back to web banking or even paper banking. Shop around - banks are IT companies like any other these days, and there are definitely banks with better terms.
Fortunately I'm in the Netherlands where web banking still works fine, so that's what I'm doing. Where are you located?
I bought a cheap burner phone for the banking and government apps. It's connected to a Google account with fake details and stays in a drawer by my desk.
This 100%. If it comes that that in the U.S. and there is no other practical alternative, I will buy the cheapest Android phone I can find to run those locked down apps on it when needed, and leave it powered off the rest of the time. All my personal business will continue to be done on my Graphene device, that's non-negotiable.
I'm in India. Usually seniors etc... Just ask family members to do their transactions. My mom basically does all the transactions for my grand parents..
For the people too poor to own a phone, they just use cash in most places they can... To put things into perspective even road side beggars/homeless people just show you a QR code on a piece of paper for where to pay them these days..
I recently put my finger on what has been changing lately, especially after the assassination:
We used to say, that online speech, is not the same as in-person speech.
Online, you can yell horrible things, imply that somebody should "do something" about another person, but police showing up at your door is a tyranny, even if those same things on a street corner would've had you on involuntary commitment. Online, a developer might build an app that pulls off phishing scams, but they have the complete right to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the person cutting your hair, preparing your food, or even selling you flowers needs registration, if only for taxes. In person was a "real" threat, while online was just "venting," "trolling."
That's dying. Online is now the real world. With real world consequences.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know in what world you could say half the things that were on BlueSky, post-assassination, without riot police being called and people getting arrested, assuming they were physically present and saying the same things.
The US? We have the first amendment here and you can actively and energetically endorse violence. You can't cross over into coordinating violence, which is the "eminent lawless action" part. But you can certainly suggest it, or demand it. Celebrating it is sometimes almost mandatory.
Can't understand how that relates to this other than as an awkward, contrived excuse for bad faith pearl clutching about checks notes Bluesky.
Are you reading your own words? You're saying online is now offline because of consequences meanwhile the Bluesky posters you're complaining about are not actually being arrested by riot police.
Google, your platform currently does not inspire any privacy. It has no ecosystem going for it (workarounds do not count, I want Apple levels everything-works-together-100%-out-of-the-box). Your Watch and other products have repeatedly been called lukewarm, and the Fitbit integration with Google integration was the last straw that pushed me off your watch platform.
If you want me to buy an iOS clone with no competitive edges, I would rather stick with the real deal. At least Apple has been consistent with their views about what iOS is since day 1.
ubuntu linux phone, as soon as I have a few bucks and a day off, as my daily driver is exclusivly side loaded and I will feel a bit better knowing how the next thing works
There is no future for "general purpose computing". The market won't sustain it. The future of computing is a signed, vetted path from boot firmware to application code. Everyone benefits from this, except devs.
Platform vendors benefit because they can collect license fees and exert control over the platform. Control is not necessarily evil; it also allows the hardware vendor to manage their reputation. People tend to blame the vendor when malware, or just poorly written software, makes things go awry; look at the flak Microsoft caught from poorly written third-party drivers causing Windows crashes back in the day.
Content and service providers benefit because the locked down platform provides reasonable assurance against compromise—hacked bank accounts, piracy, etc. which can result in losses.
End users benefit because now their computer or smartphone is as convenient and risk-free as a game console. iPhone is still the #1 brand in the US, despite being almost completely closed. NOBODY in the end user market gives a shit about being able to run arbitrary software. They would rather have safety, and iPhone gives them that.
Governments benefit because if app development requires a paper trail, app and smartphone vendors can be more easily strongarmed for law enforcement and surveillance purposes. Governments are requiring increased tracking by online services, including age verification laws in the US, UK, and elsewhere; "chat control" proposals in Europe, etc. Some governments (e.g., Brazil) are even implementing these requirements on end-user devices and operating systems. We are going to be living in a digital world that's more regulated, transparent to government, and accountable soon.
My advice is: get used to it. The free-wheeling hacker days are over, and they're not coming back. No one is going to listen to a bunch of nerds whinging that their toys have been taken away; those nerds will be told that it's time to grow up.
I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them. That ship may have sailed for ios but it hasn't for android yet.
This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
I'm all for alternatives like linux phones but it's not realistic in the timeframe. It will be a sad day if this comes to pass without least bit of resistance.
If you sell your new platform as "open" to gain market share and then break that promise of openness after you successfully drive competing platforms out of the market, that sounds a lot like fraudulent marketing to me.
Sounds like standard modern business practices to me.
Yeah I mean it's literally what the term "open source rugpull" means. Every business will ultimately renege on their open source promises. It's literally against their fiduciary duty to shareholders not to, once they've run out of actual growth ideas. Even if current management is idealistic, eventually, they will be replaced with "real leaders" who know that they need to make money.
But, ideally, it's not that big a deal, because the community (or even newer non-calcified businesses) can fork the last open source branch and continue development.
Unfortunately, with something as complex as an OS, that's incredibly difficult. It does seem regrettably unlikely that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no practically usable open-source phone OSes.
It's like the meme with "they're the same picture". Standard modern business practices are evil.
Both can be true at the same time.
The mild response shouldn't surprise you. I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Apple controls ridiculous detail of your application and there are many developers who think that it is necessary for Apple to keep the high quality of iOS.
Actually I was shocked when one of my coworkers told me that it is a very good idea and Google should have done it sooner.
> I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Those users knew in advance what they were buying into, since Apple was honest about the nature of the platform they were offering for sale.
Google's Android customers, in contrast, were lied to -- and it's solely Google's fault that Google lied about Android being both open to running any software you like and open source.
Everyone should have spoken up when they first started moving necessary developer APIs into the Play Store.
> Google's Android customers, in contrast, were lied to
They were, but I think for most users this is a sort of technical lie that they don't really care about, like if a restaurant says you can choose one of these four side dishes and when you ask for the onion rings they say they're out. I'm often hair-raisingly stunned at how little concern, or even awareness, people have about issues of privacy and user control.
> Everyone should have spoken up when they first started moving necessary developer APIs into the Play Store.
No, people needed to speak up long before then. They needed to speak up as soon as the iOS/Android duopoly began to emerge, as soon as advertising began to shift to Facebook, as soon as brick-and-mortar video rental stores started to close, and a million other things like that. The issue is that we have allowed a small number of companies to control too much infrastructure that too many people depend on too much. With that power they will find a way to screw us. If it wasn't this it would have been something else, and if there are workarounds or walkbacks on this it will still be something else later. The only way forward is wholesale dismantling of the system that has led to this. Unfortunately a lot of people would rather have convenience.
> They needed to speak up as soon as the iOS/Android duopoly began to emerge
Android drove the other options out of the market because of Google's fraudulent marketing about giving users the freedom to run anything they liked and being open source.
The fraudulent marketing came first, and truly open Linux based options previously in development were the casualties.
> for most users this is a sort of technical lie that they don't really care about
People have been going on about Android being open and iOS being a closed walled garden for as long as both platforms have existed.
The excuse making about Android becoming a walled garden, so walled gardens are OK now started only after Google altered the bargain.
>This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
You and me don't get a vote on the Google board. The current government is not what I'd call fiercely pro-consumer. People say that money talks, but what's really in this season is tacky golden bribes; not an area where consumer advocates have a comparative advantage.
Raising awareness for a change that Google is already communicating widely and openly, is unlikely to scare Google very much.
If you want to take this seriously, it's going to need something beyond the usual token resistance that consists of angry social media posts.
The solution here is to reject Google devices and switch to AOSP-derived distributions like Graphene and Lineage that patch out such arbitrary restrictions. You can buy a Pixel (ironically), flash GrapheneOS, and enjoy a phone that runs most Android apps without giving Google any of your data.
Until the government labels the use of Graphene as suspicious behavior, dragnets all alternative OS supporters, and wiretaps communications solely based on the fact that "'terrorists' use GrapheneOS".
Eventually we see a Chat Control esque law outright banning unapproved operating systems or unlocking devices. The authoritarian ratchet turns slowly but steadily, even as you sleep.
And all of the big tech corps support this vision of the future. Apple, Google Microsoft, Meta... They all release locked-down hardware and software, and have so far been on board with the convergence towards unmodifiable trusted computing. This may accelerate as local AI inference becomes commonplace and CorpGov demands unmodifiable safety controls that mediate the use of onboard models.
Last time I tried, things like my banking app didn't work.
What's the situation now? Because without those it's unfortunatly useless to me.
They're slowly tightening the screws on alternative Android builds as well. Most recently they removed distribution of factory builds for Pixels, which are used for figuring out drivers and such.
They're also literally just not pushing code to AOSP anymore. QPR1 still isn't available. It probably will be, eventually, but this year it's two months late, next year it's six months late, then nine months, then "eventually" and then finally only to OEMs.
I don't think Google looks at any of these forks as threats; they just don't care.
because everyone here didn't care when bigtech was killing gpl. heck, most people here will still defend mit/bsd while crying that google is taking their linux device to themselves.
this solution is not available to the majority of people. ok, well, they could buy a phone from china with a chinese android version. but i don't know if i would want that either.
Honestly just asking what good is Android certification on a device that has no network access?
Turn certification off and your... banking apps... and wireless pay... and play store... and online game cheat detectors... stop working? That you... already weren't using apparently because you have no network?
Sorry, I'm having a really the hard time following the use case behind the outrage here.
Everyone is mad because they won't have Android certification on devices that can't benefit from Android certification?
Outside of regulation, or a large portion of users switching to better, freer alternatives, I think the question is quickly going to become: how can we get around this and other identity verification nonsense?
"I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them"
Some might argue the corporate OS[1] user never had "control of [their] devices"
As in the past, more hassles are to come for Android users, but some might doubt this idea that users currently have control or ever had control
Why the hassles
Because the user has no control over the OS
The corporation might increase or decrease the hassles, making users happy or unhappy (or indifferent), but either way the user never has control
In a non-corporate OS the user can generally edit the OS to her liking
Introducing hassles in a non-corporate would cause users who were annoyed to remove them
In other words, if users choose a non-corporate OS where users have control then there is no need to "raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice"
1. For example, the ones from Silicon Valley and Redmond
>How do we raise awareness among people
People are aware, they just don't care.
We lost capitalism a long time ago. Us frogs are beyond the boiling point, hurdling towards the inevitable.
I use Android over iphone precisely because I'm free to install whatever apps I want.
With this planned change my reasons to ditch Android and go to Apple increase dramatically. Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Sucks for the people who can't afford an Apple device and honestly sucks for all of us who enjoyed installing all kinds of apps on our devices.
Same.
Combined with bad security practice from OEMs, preinstalled bloatware, app fragmentation (I love having Samsung "Phone" app and stock phone app at the same time) and customer service (try replacing your phone battery and compare the experience of ubreakifix and Apple store), I don't see a reason to go Android.
(P.S. people who cannot afford the latest iPhone can always purchase a two year old used/"refurbished" phone. It's a solid choice and many people do that. The fact that you can now add Apple Care to 4 year old device makes this more viable.)
Apple also has great long term support.
They just shipped security updates for the iPhone 6S which came out 10 years ago.
I must live in a parallel world because here it’s significantly easier to get an Android phone fixed than an iPhone. Plus you don’t have to pay Apple extortionate price for parts.
In the US, replacing a Samsung phone battery is not any cheaper than iPhone, and likely you'll get the phone next day unless you show up at the repair shop at 8am. Apple store? Just walk in one and you'll get it done in 1-2 hours.
It looks like Apple would charge $89 to replace a battery in my iPhone 13 Pro. I tried to find the price Samsung would charge for my wife's S21 but I had no luck (their site and SEO is a disaster). Is it much less than $89?
I paid £85 to replace the battery in an iPhone Mini 3 weeks ago, and my S22 battery can be officially replaced for £80.
Here Timpsons provide the service outlets for Samsung, although that probably does not help you. But it is basically the same price.
You can get the S22 repaired with no loss of functionality for significantly less than that if you go to another repairer and even the official channel is cheaper despite the S22 having a bigger battery than the 13 Mini.
And that’s for battery. Just take a look at screen repair if you want to cry.
> even the official channel is cheaper
Samsung.com/uk says £79, so I don't agree with that.
Is this freedom? Man you need to go into some lengths just to power up your piece of equipment. Next step is to be required to provide some biometry just to use a wall socket for the sake of protecting some children from electrocuting.
I mean you could just get a Fairphone or any other Android with replaceable batteries/parts. At least with Android you do have this freedom of choice.
Not "always", Apple doesn't provide official warranty in my country, and even replacing batteries carries significant risk. Forget about more involved types of servicing. There are lots of places like that.
I feel sorry for you. I have experienced their support in both Germany and The Netherlands and it's stellar. You can call them, get someone on the line in a few minutes and they will genuinely try to help you. One time there was an issue with a transaction (amount subtracted twice), within a few minutes of calling I was in contact with someone from their finance department who not only solved the issue, they also called back a few days later to verify that I got the refund and to check if I was happy with their help.
Another time my wife wanted Apple Care, but decided on the last day and the website didn't offer the option anymore. She called, they were really helpful and again called back a few days later to check everything is good on our end.
They are a big-tech company, but actually being able to call someone and getting swift help is refreshing.
Edit: I only now realize the accidental pun: you probably won't be getting 'Swift' help. :p
I could never give Apple another dime, they're the ones responsible for enabling and normalizing this.
And if Android's removal of rights lags 5-10 years behind Apple again in the future, that's a win.
Yeah, this is exactly my reasoning too. And with Google making it harder for OSes like GrapheneOS to run on Pixel devices, my next device will have to be an Apple one. There's nothing left in the Android ecosystem for me.
Yup, same here. I've even talked family members into joining me. If this goes through and locks me out of installing things that aren't officially signed, I'll be done with Android.
At least, the standard version. If Samsung or someone keeps it open, I'd probably move to that.
I have an iphone and I feel a frequent nagging in the back of my head to switch to android despite the serious created by ecosystem lock-in and it's solely for the benefit of sideloading. Like you said, why would I leave apple's refined and increasingly customizable walled garden for google's half-assed one? Especially when Google is explicitly an ad company (I know apple isn't that much better).
Why go from a devil to another? Consider Ubuntu Touch it's actually pretty good and the dev community is really welcoming. Feel like the old school linux groups.
1.0 around the corner. Really hoping mobile and handheld Linux os take off
I am out of the loop with the entire thing. I used to an android dev back then. Google's shenanigans is the reason why I left mobile dev. Does this mean I cannot even compile and install apps on my phone from android studio?
No, they're not removing ADB install capabilities
So I can just adb install any apk I want, no matter if it's a Google authenticated developer who signed the app? So f-droid would continue to work fine so long as they install via adb instead of the intent mechanism or whatever it currently is?
AFAIU your device will no longer pass their treacherous "Play Integrity", which means that many banking and government applications will no longer work. For me it's a complete deal breaker because that's 99% of why I own a smartphone at all.
Apple is prohibitively expensive here, there's no official warranty and much difficulty with doing quality battery replacements, so I will probably have to own two phones.
It seems that won't affect Play Integrity for now. But I wonder if we'll eventually see rooted (GrapheneOS etc.) phones installing patches to banking apps to fool them into thinking they're legit. Hacked Nintendo Switches already do something similar.
In case there's a misunderstanding, GrapheneOS doesn't provide root access, and fooling apps won't be possible as the platform keeps moving towards stronger hardware attestation.
However banks can use the hardware attestation API instead of Play Integrity API to allow alternative distributions like GrapheneOS [1]. All of my financial apps happen to work on GrapheneOS.
[1] https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
Thanks, I was confused. I thought you needed to root the phone to install GrapheneOS, but it seems you only need to unlock the bootloader.
That's available right now as Frida plugins etc. The problem is that remote attestation is done on the server and bank backend API would be able to call Google Play API to check the attestation and deny access. Nothing you can patch on the app side could change that.
That's not true - you can enable developer mode and install apps via ADB without affecting Play Integrity for other apps on your device. You can test this today.
Play Integrity is focused on checking the OS is original and the runtime environment of the app (your banking app in this case) isn't being messed with. Installing other apps as a developer isn't related to that. If you're not flashing a custom OS or modifying your bank's APK you'll be fine.
(You _should_ be able to use custom OSs and Play Integrity is awful, to be clear - but not because of anything directly relate to normal app development & sideloading)
You are describing the status quo rather than what the Google has said they will do in the future.
I somehow wish both things we working - as in "sandboxed" / "isolate" one from another (if that makes any sense).
So I can install my F-Droid on one of the partition, and actual personal stuff on the other. Bit like my Chromebook with Crostini.
In the newest android there is now an option to enable a "Linux development environment" AKA crostini for Android.
It works the same way, there is a Linux terminal application that runs Debian inside a VM. They recently added a button to launch a display window. This then functions as your "monitor" and applications you launch that provide a GUI display there.
Still experimenting with it not clear if you can launch android inside that with waydroid or similar
The terminal has a nasty bug where sometimes it starts typing a bunch of stuff with each keypress. The only way to fix it that i found is to close the terminal, which isn't much of a fix
You can. Install a work profile on the device (You can use a third party app like Island) to do this. Then you can install apps into their own sandbox.
I do have work profile, and used it in the past, but as soon as you really want to use it as work profile, then some admin program would like to take over your phone, and not just your work profile - so no "dev mode", etc. (Or maybe I have old info... not sure).
But good suggestion to try this again!
That's not true. Enabling developer options or installing via ADB won't impact Play Integrity
The target is more the likes of f-droid or the Amazon Store or Epic going "We don't like the Play Store policy, download Fortnite.apk from us", than developers compiling stuff and loading them on their own phone
Same. Going to go for the prettier jailed garden instead of the uglier one. Can pay the cost of ugly with freedom. But if you are gonna get jailed anyways, why not choose the one with better interior decoration ?
I too am considering that. I give up many smartphone benefits in the name of privacy and control, but if open source Android withers, then I'm going to shift to choosing quality and service.
For one, I get to use a pre-paid phone, and with the price of an iPhone I get one or two Androids, which always get used until they break down.
For completeness, how long is that? iPhones tend to get security updates for, what, 7 years? Consistently?
Since the 6s, iPhones get 6 or 7 versions of iOS (including their release version), which puts them at about 7-8 years of full support less whatever features (like Apple Intelligence) don't get support on some hardware. Before the 6s, it was lower but the hardware was also changing a lot faster (like going from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM).
But for security updates they've pushed it up to 10 years. The 6s, 2015, got a security update this month.
They're actively supporting (at least security updates) iOS 15, 16, 18, and now of course 26. 17 was skipped because no devices lost support with it, everything that could run 17 can run 18.
I have phones between Android 12 and Android 15, they still get the updates that are available from PlayStore.
Everything else, it isn't like I am a public figure that has to have ultimate security devices.
Well to be fair even if Android were completely open: In the US, your phone is still beholden to small number carriers. They get to decide what devices can connect to their network. This determines much of the hardware and software of the phones on their networks.
So ultimately they own the devices that connect to them. That's why I've already stopped paying for phones and just get free ones when offered. If I do pay for one again it'll just be the cheapest Chinese one available.
Same boat. Wouldn't be hard to switch either - Android and iOS are virtually indistinguishable on the UI side now. That was the last thing holding me back.
> Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Can’t disagree more.
Android has both better phones and better UX. Apple is usually lagging the Asian brands by years.
I went from a Pixel 3A to an iPhone 13 and just switched back to a Pixel 10 Pro and gosh the iPhone was a complete wreck. It’s even worse with their new UI.
Unless you are somehow stuck in the Apple ecosystem, I don’t understand why people pay more for it. The idea than the Android experience is somehow subpar when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it is crazy to me.
Apple has Apple Silicon, designers of the most advanced ARM processors in the world. The latest iPhone is usually about twice as fast as the latest flagship from Google or Samsung. And that's not even factoring in the performance benefits of native-compiled, static-lifetime languages like Objective-C and Swift compared to Android's Java and Dalvik/ART based ecosystem.
Since Android 5 that ART uses AOT, and nowadays it is a mix of JIT and AOT with PGO metadata shared via PlayStore.
Additionally, Java and Kotlin are quite usable outside Android, instead of flourishing in a single vendor ecosystem.
Swift outside Apple ecosystem is as interesting as using Objective-C with GNUStep.
> The latest iPhone is usually about twice as fast as the latest flagship from Google or Samsung
So my text messages will arrive twice as fast to the destination? Or phone calls will be two times shorter? Or I will read HN comment twice as fast while taking shit? Or the route found by Google Maps will have two times less traffic lights?
That’s non sense metric.
Nobody cares about how fast their phone cpu is. My iPhone 13 was significantly less performant than a top of the line modern Qualcomm CPU and never felt slow. Apple chips are also no more twice as fast as the competitions. The gap has been smaller for years.
If that’s all you have, you have basically nothing.
Only the experience matters and the iPhone UX is strictly inferior to the competition. Battery life is worse, camera is worse, screen is worse. So happy I switched and really regret ever trying buying one.
Typically, Android apps launch faster than iOS apps even on significantly slower hardware because Dalvik/ART is optimized for that, and iOS is not.
> Android has both better phones and better UX.
extreme, EXTREME minority opinion stated as fact
> when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it
This is a popular refrain but never passes the sniff test. Android has nothing equivalent to AirPods, airdrop, find my, list goes on and on.
> Android has nothing equivalent to AirPods, airdrop, find my, list goes on and on.
Sony has a product which is considerably better than the AirPods and the Pixel Buds are competitive.
Google has an alternative to Find my which works the same and allows to use trackers from multiple brands, including some which are better than AirTag.
Android has a default feature called nearby share which works the same and has had sharing via WiFi for much longer than Apple including some options which are not annoyingly gimped proprietary technology.
It’s always the same issue with Apple fan. They are completely unaware of how far behind Apple is because they don’t want to even look outside.
AirPods → Google Pixel Buds, Samsung Galaxy Buds, OnePlus Buds (and similar)
AirDrop → Nearby Share (Google), Quick Share (Samsung)
Find My → Find My Device (Google)
Just for folks reading this and being unfamiliar with Apple's options, here are some of their capabilities that sets them apart in a UX way:
AirPods: can simultainiously be paired with iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad and Mac. The switching between the audio you hear is fully automated and generally "just works" using sensors on both the AirPods and your 'source device'. e.g. listen to audio from your mac, but get a call? You can 'just pick it up' without any Bluetooth hassling or switching.
AirDrop: the hardware Wifi chips in your device actually gets configured in a peer to peer mode that enables (very) high capacity transfers. Think of pushing multiple gigabytes. It does not require any configuration, the devices can figure it out themselves if nearby and unlocked. It also works between Mac's, iPads and iPhones.
Find My: It's not just for devices, you can share your location with family and friends, with reasonable control over things like 'for how long'. You can set alerts for leaving or arriving a particular location (Apple informs both parties of such geofencing). It also integrates with the workout app or navigation app, e.g. keeping folks updated on the ETA.
Virtually all descend brands support multiple pairing and fast switching nowadays. This is not a AirPods advantage. AirPods miserably fail at this as soon as you use them on anything non Apple.
Nearby Share works exactly the same than AirDrop with regards to pair to pair mode on supporting device. It also works on anything supporting one of its client which covers a lot of material.
Find my: Google has exactly the same functionality and has had it for years.
You are completely disconnected from the state of the art. Meanwhile it’s 2025 and iOS still can’t properly deal with notifications.
I have a bluetooth headset from 2017 right next to me that did just that, it could be paired and connect to obher devices.
Wifi direct. Apple didn't invent it. Android also does that. Also that's now also an optional part of the bluetooth spec (to use the wifi radio as well)
>You can 'just pick it up' without any Bluetooth hassling or switching.
I've done this on android/linux with random bluetooth earbuds. I'm sure apple is more reliable or whatever but this is not a unique feature to them.
Apple is not more reliable. Their fan boys are just convinced they somehow use magic while all they have is a pair of buds which can only properly work with one brand.
Multiple pairing and fast switching have worked correctly for ages on multiple brands but they are completely unaware.
Are all inferior products by a long shot, and also copies of Apple features…
The fact that you move the goalpost proves any discussion with fanboy is pointless, for you have made some brand part of your identity.
70% of the world kind of disagrees.
This is immensely frustrating to me.
I was an iPhone user from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, when the iTunes backup from my failed iPhone 4S wouldn't restore to an iPhone SE (it made the phone boot loop) I got frustrated and went Android.
I decided to "sideload" all non-stock software on my Android phone. I never have setup a Google Play account. I kept all the APKs for the software I loaded over the years that I used that phone.
I just got a new Android phone a couple of weeks ago. I was able to just load all the software I use day-to-day from APKs (except for a few that are, apparently, processor-specific). I imported my SMS, contacts, and call logs using a nice FOSS app[0]. It felt remarkably like moving to a new PC does. It was nice.
I am really sad Google is ending this moving forward. Jackasses.
[0] https://github.com/tmo1/sms-ie
I got a new Android phone recently as well. I am trying to see how far I can get without signing into a Google or Motorola (this is a Motorola phone) account. So far so good. I can't download any apps from the app store that were not already included when I activated the phone but I can use fdroid so I am good for the most part.
Aurora Store[0] is an alternative FOSS frontend to Google Play, in which you can install/update apps without any account.
[0] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
I'm using a Motorola phone myself and I'm having great luck with it. Newer stuff is coming in XAPK format packages and I've had no luck side loading any of those apps. So far I've been able to do without so it hasn't been a problem, just an annoyance.
You can use MiXplorer to install XAPK files. Just try to open the XAPK in the app and it should show an option to install.
I'll check it out. Thanks!
Edit: I hadn't used MiXplorer before. I was able to install an XAPK with it, so that's nice.
Consider becoming part of UTports community.
I recently joined it as I hated feeling powerless about this change in Android. Becoming one more working on a third option is very freeing. I'd recommend it, plus Ubuntu Touch is surprisingly a nice OS.
It doesn't sound like you even need a certified Android device? Does this even affect you?
Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-competitive?"
It's no surprise that Google will start mirroring Apple more if closed ecosystems cannot be monopolies.
If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply.
Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions.
If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions.
That's how the existing law works.
If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.
Our legal system is such a joke.
You mean, it does not have competition?
I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
the courts would rather google control
If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil.
Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
The courts judge violations of antitrust law.
If you create an open platform it is subject to antitrust law.
Ask Microsoft about the difference in the legal restrictions on what they are allowed to do on their Windows platform vs their Xbox platform.
It does, but open borders are for capital, not you.
[dead]
And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so.
"Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%."
https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-...
But hey, I can surely launch my own storefront to sell in-game items on top of Fortnite right?
Right?
Oh.
The government isn't worried about control, but economics.
Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.)
As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.
It just keeps getting worse. I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys. It is incredibly frustrating watching this play out without having an alternative to migrate to.
It's extending beyond mobile too, which is terrifying.
Anonymity is under attack in general
Anonymity isn't under attack, we've been giving it away since MySpace and Facebook. Why forcibly take what you're willingly given?
Because it’s one thing to publicly show what you want and another to be forced to show everything that you have because you’re not a terrorist, are you? Have you though if children?
> I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys.
This was always the plan. Co-opt FLOSS with services running on FLOSS platforms that are not, themselves, FLOSS. Make it insanely unattractive to run actual FLOSS services on the otherwise FLOSS platform. At that point, it might as well be what Apple does.
There's a reason why rms was insistent upon GPL, but he never did have a real answer to that sort of corporate behavior.
It would be righteous for it to destroy all of Android, not just its ecosystem.
The obvious alternative is Linux phones. Granted, the tech sets us back by maybe two decades, but at least we're almost at the stage where we can rapidfire develop our own apps or open source apps using LLM assistance.
Linux phones need a lot of love in both the hardware and shell departments to be practical for replacing mainstream smartphones.
> The obvious alternative is Linux phones.
Kindly disagree. Linux phones are very far behind.
The obvious alternative is an alternative OS based on AOSP. Like GrapheneOS.
I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly). I really wish I could use GrapheneOS on non-Google hardware.
> I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly).
I see it a bit differently: Google will be fine without me. But I can contribute to GrapheneOS. So I may as well have a Pixel and donate to GrapheneOS.
Graphene is planning to make their own phone though, so that may work for you. I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
> Graphene is planning to make their own phone though
I don't think it will be their own phone, and I hope they don't go down that route.
They are talking with an OEM to help them increase their security to reach the requirements of GrapheneOS, at which point GrapheneOS will be able to support those non-Pixel phones.
> I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
Same here. I've been a user of /e/OS for 4.5 years. I have come to the conclusion that the only Android system worth its while in terms of security is GrapheneOS. If it wasn't for it, I would go with an iPhone. And I do avoid TooBigTech as much as I can (I even self-host some stuff for that). But the hardware situation is the way it is, and the Pixels are simply superior at the moment.
The survival of GrapheneOS is far from guaranteed for multiple reasons, but sure, it's nice while it lasts and stays updated with patches. I think Graphene might benefit from having additional hardware interoperability, and additional security layers that defend it even in the face of delayed patches from upstream.
Sure, but the survival of any Mobile Linux doesn't have better odds.
The way I see it, the more support GrapheneOS gets, the higher the likelihood it survives. The goal is to reach a point where Android manufacturers consider that they lose money if they don't reach the requirements of GrapheneOS, because enough people care about them.
I switched to Ubuntu Touch and I see nothing wrong with it, very pleased actually. What's your experience?
On which device/hardware?
I got a FairPhone 5, not bad. I wanted to contribute without supporting Google, so FP is a good choice.
How many Linux phones work well even as phones?
Even if they do, the security model is very different.
Then the Linux phones will come under regulatory pressure to reveal this information and shut down freedoms.
Who would they pressure? And even if they were successful in pressuring them, people would just remove it or fork.
The chipmakers. In my dystopia, there are military permanently stationed at all of them, making sure that nothing gets out of there that can run unauthorized OSes or LLMs. Innovation Force.
Linux is far, far harder to regulate.
Android never had the FLOSS ethos of Linux or the GNU project at large.
what happened to fuchsia OS or sails?
A key question here is if installation of Google Apps can fail verification if the device is offline, or if they have some magic local public key chain of pre-authed all OK keys.
DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED is very clearly the purpose of the whole thing. Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
> Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
Your "presumably" is doing a _lot_ of work; these strings are from the PackageInstaller, and go along with all of the other reasons you can't install an APK.
Historically, apps that were pulled from the Play Store and developer accounts revoked due to malware do _not_ affect apps on the end-user device, and there's no current sign of this changing with this specific project. Google have generally achieved this goal using Play Protect, the separate app/service which _can_ download revocation lists and signal end-users to delete malicious apps, and there's no indication this will change.
Android has a bunch of special signing keys (vendor, Google, that kind of thing) that get special treatment. I assume the same will apply here.
I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked, blocking malware shops is the entire point.
Installations failing because of a network problem is different, though. The Android ecosystem can trivially leverage the existing app certificates + occasionally updated CRLs to verify app developers. Android needing to call to the net before installing an APK seems over the top.
> I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked...
for building an alternative YouTube frontend. Or a torrenting app. Or due to sanctions / trade wars. (If you think these can't happen to you personally, imagine a Mega-Trump who's even Trumpier than Trump getting elected US president.)
What's malware to Google isn't necessarily malware to the user.
It will work the same way Play Protect does for blocking installation of malware. I don't think it will trigger on already installed apps, as I think package verifies require an actual update to the apk before they will trigger.
I just don't get it. It's not their device to decide what code can run on it. They can gatekeep at their store, because it's their store.
> It's not their device to decide what code can run on it.
They apparently feel very differently.
We got rid of the license on the OS; but they found other ways to put a license on the phone.
Clippy would never take away things you own. https://youtu.be/2_Dtmpe9qaQ
But it is their device. That's why the legalese at the beginning makes such a big deal of explaining that it's licensed not sold.
The legalese at the beginning of ...?
Yes, so much for portability, the portability ship now is in the hand of two corporates, that do not care about what a user wants. The convenience, it offers, depends on the profitability of these corporates.
Well, I do not want to just in to one walled garden to another, so, I think, this is the end of portable devices for me. That is the stick, that Google and Apple both using to keep us in their hands, so, I'm going to do my best to say: No thank you, and F*ck off.
I might not ever buy a flagship or high-end smartphone anymore, but get a smaller laptop, and keep an old or cheap Android handy, which will have very little personal data in it. I can easily tether the Laptop with my mobile and do most of the things that are needed.
Yes, for bank applications, and some other applications, that requires app, I will keep the cheap Android handy. But, it not a personal device anymore, the thing that I loved about Android, it's just there, because it has to.
And I am done with a mobile device till a true Linux based mobile become available.
This is so rubbish.
I used to be an Android dev, and occasionally dabble.
I use Android as I can put things on it.
If its going to be closed, I may as well get an iPhone, or stick with open and get a Linux phone next.
I recommend Linux phone, really rewarding not supporting these trash corporations.
Look into UBports if you want to join the dev community (either for apps or system).
This is great… for web apps.
I really hope this will be the final straw to break the camel’s back and people will see that native platforms bring nothing but lock in and misery (I’m an Android native developer, don’t bother telling me about “native experience”).
At this point, the only reason I have an Android phone is GrapheneOS. Fortunately it is not impacted by this. The day Google manages to make GrapheneOS unusable, I'm off to the iPhone.
This is my plan as well. If we loose the ability to run GrapheneOS, I'll get an iphone and treat it as a locked down home router, and use a linux phone with open source apps for my calls/messaging.
I will also do everything in my power to halt support for Android in favor of web apps. No sense duplicating work for two separate platforms if one is just a crappy clone of another.
My daughter wants me to read the Ada & Zangemann book as a bed time lecture [1]. I don't know if she feels how relevant this topic has become.
[1] https://fsfe.org/activities/ada-zangemann/index.en.html
I was unaware of this book. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
As long as any old apk can be installed over ADB, f-droid just needs to release a desktop app, and I'm gtg. Yeah, it's a little inconvenient, and hopefully just a stopgap until Linux phones are viable, but still better than Apple.
It means users without a PC won't have this possibility. You will not be able to do squat if you are mobile-only. Maybe not a major change for us here but a dealbreaker for the majority.
Would it be viable to enable wireless ADB and use a browser/app on the same phone to connect to it, and install the APKs that way?
You can do ADB over the network so any device can use it, even from the same phone.
Honestly, for people who value privacy and security: What exactly is the plan?
It seems like we're going from a reasonably acceptable option (GrapheneOS), to nothing.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
If ever there was a time for Linux phones to gain renewed development interest, it's now.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
I hope Google continues to send money to Firefox or they will die.
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
This.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
its a great idea but i think the work to make something practical is extremely high
Year of the Linux phones?
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
But why start from scratch with a “Linux phone” when we can continue on the basis of GrapheneOS. The source is there and it works.
Apps that require Google Play Service or some form of attestation will not run on a Linux phone either.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Graphene is in talks with an OEM to make compatible devices. AOSP is free software, the only issue here is finding devices where it can be installed.
I'm confused... how is it different from what I said?
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
It seems to me that people are overreacting a little.
There's only speculation that GtapheneOS will stop existing.
They're working with a manufacturer to get first-class support for a new phone, which will be hard for Google to simply kill off.
Short and medium term GrapheneOS will continue and long-term I'm also hopeful.
wasnt there a lot of excitement in between for Fuchsia OS and Sailfish OS what happened to those?
What happens to hobby android app development when this comes into effect?
You can't even test stuff you made on your own hardware without getting verified.
Same as iOS, either it dies or you pay for it.
If functionality is taken away from a device, e.g. this, locking down bootloaders etc the consumer should have the right to a refund.
It's not like Android and iOS are the only options exactly.
So I never spend much on phones, but I just got a Fairphone 4 running E/OS , which is .... like running android, except it blocks tracking by default, and you're in control. Some fairphones come with e/os pre-installed, but installing it isn't even all too fiddly, you can do it direct from chrome(ium).
And you can take it apart with your fingers and a screwdriver!
There's hope yet!
They _are_ the only options if you want banking to work reliably, which is essential for me at least due to 3DS requiring mobile app verification for transactions. I have to run stock android for pretty much this reason only. Everything else I could manage with, but not being locked out of certain banks.
Oh dear! That's like Microsoft all over again!
I've been in IT long enough to recognize this pattern. Every "convenient" lock-in becomes an expensive problem later - something you're definitely experiencing now!
My advice: don't get locked in in the first place yesterday. Or second best, start exploring ways out today. Push back on your bank - odds are they simply haven't had enough complaints yet. Demand alternate authentication methods. Fall back to web banking or even paper banking. Shop around - banks are IT companies like any other these days, and there are definitely banks with better terms.
Fortunately I'm in the Netherlands where web banking still works fine, so that's what I'm doing. Where are you located?
Huh, turns out a lot of banking apps actually work on e/os.
TBQH I'm a bit skeptical of banking apps in general, mind, but if you're not here's a list:
https://community.e.foundation/t/list-banking-apps-on-e-os/3...
For a lot of us who have to use payment apps, banking apps, government apps, these two are pretty much the only options. :/
I bought a cheap burner phone for the banking and government apps. It's connected to a Google account with fake details and stays in a drawer by my desk.
This 100%. If it comes that that in the U.S. and there is no other practical alternative, I will buy the cheapest Android phone I can find to run those locked down apps on it when needed, and leave it powered off the rest of the time. All my personal business will continue to be done on my Graphene device, that's non-negotiable.
That sounds terrible! What country are you in? (And what happens to seniors, or people who can't afford a phone, for instance? )
I'm in India. Usually seniors etc... Just ask family members to do their transactions. My mom basically does all the transactions for my grand parents..
For the people too poor to own a phone, they just use cash in most places they can... To put things into perspective even road side beggars/homeless people just show you a QR code on a piece of paper for where to pay them these days..
Wouldn't be possible to just install an alternative Android build that has this removed?
Sure, but then you'll be locked out of apps and sites that enforce device integrity.
I guess the best option is two android phones, one for Google's locked down junk and another that is allowed to run your own code.
I recently put my finger on what has been changing lately, especially after the assassination:
We used to say, that online speech, is not the same as in-person speech.
Online, you can yell horrible things, imply that somebody should "do something" about another person, but police showing up at your door is a tyranny, even if those same things on a street corner would've had you on involuntary commitment. Online, a developer might build an app that pulls off phishing scams, but they have the complete right to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the person cutting your hair, preparing your food, or even selling you flowers needs registration, if only for taxes. In person was a "real" threat, while online was just "venting," "trolling."
That's dying. Online is now the real world. With real world consequences.
>Online is now the real world.
Without most of the benefits of the real world, mind you.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know in what world you could say half the things that were on BlueSky, post-assassination, without riot police being called and people getting arrested, assuming they were physically present and saying the same things.
The US? We have the first amendment here and you can actively and energetically endorse violence. You can't cross over into coordinating violence, which is the "eminent lawless action" part. But you can certainly suggest it, or demand it. Celebrating it is sometimes almost mandatory.
Can't understand how that relates to this other than as an awkward, contrived excuse for bad faith pearl clutching about checks notes Bluesky.
Are you reading your own words? You're saying online is now offline because of consequences meanwhile the Bluesky posters you're complaining about are not actually being arrested by riot police.
I think they're saying that they would very much like that to happen.
That has always been the case. I've always posted under my real name as a constant reminder.
Google, your platform currently does not inspire any privacy. It has no ecosystem going for it (workarounds do not count, I want Apple levels everything-works-together-100%-out-of-the-box). Your Watch and other products have repeatedly been called lukewarm, and the Fitbit integration with Google integration was the last straw that pushed me off your watch platform.
If you want me to buy an iOS clone with no competitive edges, I would rather stick with the real deal. At least Apple has been consistent with their views about what iOS is since day 1.
Google is on X
I really don't like this move. I always rooted for Android because of its openness. It was also a reason why I was proud to work at Google.
The PlayStore is full of crapware, and I'm using a lot of apps from Fdroid, including basics like keyboard and text.
If you're at Google try to push back on this please.
ubuntu linux phone, as soon as I have a few bucks and a day off, as my daily driver is exclusivly side loaded and I will feel a bit better knowing how the next thing works
Once again.
There is no future for "general purpose computing". The market won't sustain it. The future of computing is a signed, vetted path from boot firmware to application code. Everyone benefits from this, except devs.
Platform vendors benefit because they can collect license fees and exert control over the platform. Control is not necessarily evil; it also allows the hardware vendor to manage their reputation. People tend to blame the vendor when malware, or just poorly written software, makes things go awry; look at the flak Microsoft caught from poorly written third-party drivers causing Windows crashes back in the day.
Content and service providers benefit because the locked down platform provides reasonable assurance against compromise—hacked bank accounts, piracy, etc. which can result in losses.
End users benefit because now their computer or smartphone is as convenient and risk-free as a game console. iPhone is still the #1 brand in the US, despite being almost completely closed. NOBODY in the end user market gives a shit about being able to run arbitrary software. They would rather have safety, and iPhone gives them that.
Governments benefit because if app development requires a paper trail, app and smartphone vendors can be more easily strongarmed for law enforcement and surveillance purposes. Governments are requiring increased tracking by online services, including age verification laws in the US, UK, and elsewhere; "chat control" proposals in Europe, etc. Some governments (e.g., Brazil) are even implementing these requirements on end-user devices and operating systems. We are going to be living in a digital world that's more regulated, transparent to government, and accountable soon.
My advice is: get used to it. The free-wheeling hacker days are over, and they're not coming back. No one is going to listen to a bunch of nerds whinging that their toys have been taken away; those nerds will be told that it's time to grow up.