I agree. I don't like the idea of Android being locked down, but the conversations around this topic are tipping into disingenuous.

Your phone is still yours, you can still install third party apps, and you can still develop apps without a verification. But now there's a one-off hurdle to install them.

Not ideal, but when we think of the people that it's trying to protect, this feels like a reasonable middle ground.

▲

danpalmer a day ago | parent [-]

Exactly. Nuance and good faith is in desperate need here. Google hasn't been perfect here by any stretch, but they are clearly responding to feedback. This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem" sort of stance, which is just talking cross-purposes. By all means push back on security being a concern, but the numbers don't support this.

	▲	plst 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You mention nuance and good faith, but on your profile, and on your website, you claim to work on Android at Google. Previously on Google Play. I don't see that mentioned in your comments about this issue, I do think it matters a lot. > This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem" Which is also a total misrepresentation of the arguments made on the website, and made by many people opposing these changes. Again, since you mention good faith and nuance. > By all means push back on security being a concern, The website does not seem to push back on security being a concern in general, if I'm reading it right. It does however push back on the idea that changes made by Google will actually increase security of the users. > but the numbers don't support this. Can I see these numbers? I would seriously love to.