You’re still proving the point above, which is ignoring the fact that the restriction is specifically targeted at a small number of countries. Google is also rolling out processes for advanced users to install apps. It’s all in the linked post (which apparently isn’t being read by the people injecting their own assumptions)

Google is not rolling this out to protect against YouTube ReVanced but only in a small number of countries. That’s an illogical conclusion to draw from the facts.

▲

unsungNovelty 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Its my device. Not google's. Imagine telling you which NPM/PIP packages you can install from your terminal.

Also, its not SIDE loading. Its installing an app.

▲

freefaler 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well... it would be good if this was true, but read the ToS and it looks more like a licence to use than "ownership" sadly :(

	▲	AnthonyMouse an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Android" is really a lot of different code but most of it is the Apache license or the GPL. Google Play has its own ToS, but why should that have to do with anything when you're not using it?

▲

xnx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree, but I don't see why Google gets more critical attention than the iPhone or Xbox.

	▲	AnthonyMouse an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you tell people you have a closed platform and then you have a closed platform, people who want an open platform will have a lower preference for your products and obsequious fawns will defend you by telling people who don't like it to use the open platform instead. When you claim to have an open platform and then try to close it, the treachery is transparent even to knuckleheads and you can't fob people off by telling them to use the open platform when you're supposed to be the open platform. Even some of the apple-polishers won't like you because you're breaking their alibi. It's the same reason nobody cares about Xbox but Microsoft signaling that they want to do the same thing with Windows 11 has people gathering pitchforks and installing Linux.
	▲	_blk an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		iPhone has always been that way (try installing an .ipa file that's not signed with a valid apple developer certificate). For Google forced app verification is a major change. Xbox I don't know..

▲

da_chicken 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos.

I'm not on the side of locking people out, but this is a poor argument.

▲

cookiengineer 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos.

Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows.

Hence you don't realize how good of an argument it is, because you even bamboozled yourself without realizing it.

It gets a worse argument if we want to discuss Qubes and other distributions that are actually focused on security, e.g. via firejail, hardened kernels or user namespaces to sandbox apps.

▲

Ms-J 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows."

This is only true if you use Secure boot. It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. Then any OS can be installed.

▲

cookiengineer 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Now tell me how

Turning off UEFI secure boot on a PC to install another "unsecure distribution"

vs.

Unlocking fastboot bootloader on Android to install another "unsecure ROM"

... is not the exact same language, which isn"t really about security but about absolute control of the device.

The parallels are astounding, given that Microsoft's signing process of binaries also meanwhile depends on WHQL and the Microsoft Store. Unsigned binaries can't be installed unless you "disable security features".

My point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with actual security improvements.

Google could've invested that money instead into building an EDR and called it Android Defender or something. Everyone worried about security would've installed that Antivirus. And on top of it, all the fake Anti Viruses in the Google Play Store (that haven't been removed by Google btw) would have no scamming business model anymore either.

▲

Lammy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with you and run with it disabled myself, but some anti-cheat software will block you if you do this. Battlefield 6 and Valorant both require it.

▲

HumanOstrich an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

While it's possible to install and use Windows 11 without Secure Boot enabled, it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft and doesn't meet the minimum system requirements. Thus it could negatively affect the ability to get updates and support.

> It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off.

You know what's even less secure? Having it off.

▲

Lammy an hour ago | parent [-]

The name “Secure Boot” is such an effective way for them to guide well-meaning but naïve people's thought process to their desired outcome. Microsoft's idea of Security is security from me, not security for me. They use this overloaded language because it's so hard to argue against. It's a thought-terminating cliché.

Oh, you don't use <thing literally named ‘Secure [Verb]’>?? You must not care about being secure, huh???

Dear Microsoft: fuck off; I refuse to seek your permission-via-signing-key to run my own software on my own computer.

	▲	Ms-J an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. Also Secure boot is vulnerable to many types of exploits. Having it enabled can be a danger in its self as it can be used to infect the OS that relies on it.

▲

Aeolun 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A small number of countries now. The rest of the world in 2027 and beyond.