| ▲ | dataflow 9 hours ago |
| > Google's "escape hatch" is a trap door >> Wait 24 hours >> Pick "allow temporarily" (7 days) or "allow indefinitely Geez. I don't like what they're doing either but this fear-mongering is not helping your cause. So the "trap door" here is just that you can't buy a phone and immediately start loading apps from unverified developers onto it until 24h have passed? Of all the hills we could be dying on, that's the one we're picking? |
|
| ▲ | amiga386 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| - the "24 hours" is Google's first formulation of plausible deniability. They've likely done testing to hone that number to find a sweet spot. - the "24 hours" is enforced by remotely-run code, meaning Google remains in control of it and can unilaterally alter how this works, any time they feel like. Imagine you went to the shops, and found that one shop, while it had the goods on display, and could totally just let you pick them up and buy them, was required by the shop next door to make you go away and come back no sooner than 24 hours later. Meanwhile, the shop next door is right there, and it's open, and it has no such restriction. On what planet do you think anyone other than the most dedicated of dedicated people would choose the shop that requires waiting a whole day to use it when the alternative has no such restriction? > unverified developers The developers in F-Droid are verified, just not by Google. That's the whole fucking point. Google is not the be-all and end-all, but with this power-play, they are making themselves that. |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > On what planet do you think anyone other than the most dedicated of dedicated people would choose the shop that requires waiting a whole day to use it when the alternative has no such restriction? I have no clue what you're referring to or worried about here, could you clarify? Are you worried Android is going to lose power users to iPhone? What are the alternative shops you're referring to here? We're not buying pastries. > The developers in F-Droid are verified, just not by Google. "Unverified" in my comment was a shorthand for "unverified by Google", not an insult. > Google is not the be-all and end-all, but with this power-play, they are making themselves that. The complain about that? Rather than wasting time complaining about the 24h wait? I don't know if people's imaginations are lacking here, but there could easily be a world in which your 'alternative' verifier would still make you wait 24h (or longer). The wait is clearly a security mechanism, regardless of who makes you do it. (And yes, it could have been chosen for plausible deniability.) Is your actual problem the wait itself, or is your actual problem the identity of the entity making you do it, or is your actual problem that the power is too concentrated in one entity, regardless of the entity? These are very different issues with very different solutions. | | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What are the alternative shops you're referring to here? In this analogy, the alternative shop that is preventing you from buying stuff from its competitors without a 24 hour wait is the Play Store monopoly. > but there could easily be a world in which your 'alternative' verifier would still make you wait 24h (or longer). Then in this hypothetical world where there were a free market for verifiers rather than a single, monopolistic choice, I would choose another alternative verifier that doesn't make me wait 24 hours, or no verifier at all. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | brainwad 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So the "trap door" here is just that you can't buy a phone and immediately start loading apps I'm sorry, I thought I owned the phone I bought, and had a right to decide what software I want on it whenever I want. |
| |
| ▲ | forshaper 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's still surprising to me how fast we lost ownership norms, and most seem satisfied with renting the right to be a sort of peasant. | | |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unless you own your own cell carrier and built towers across your country, you can’t own a phone. | | |
| ▲ | orangecat 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure you can, the same way you can own a lamp without owning the power plant. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree wholeheartedly, but you can already unlock and root your phone and install whatever you want. This is not that battle. Mind you, I don't like either of these, but they're very different in nature. | | |
| ▲ | brainwad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And if I want to run the stock OS I paid for, with apps of my choice? It feels like a bait and switch to lock down the OS like this after you've sold the device. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jsiepkes 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > fear-mongering is not helping your cause So we started with an OS (when Google still needed to gain market share and goodwill) which was opensource. Now Google is no longer developing Android source code in the open and decreasing the "opensourcing" to a couple of source drops each year (the interval has been decreased multiple times). Google Play was introduced (basically clamping down the app store ecosystem) and from there Google has only made it harder to get around Google Play. Introducing things like phone attestation. Supposedly a security measure, yet for some reason a Samsung phone which hasn't had an update in 4 years still passes basic level attestation. And now Google is yet again making it harder to get around the Play store. And for some reason you seem to think it is reasonable to assume it is going to stop here? |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > And for some reason you seem to think it is reasonable to assume it is going to stop here? I really don't. That is, actually, my entire point: people are going to roll their eyes at this right now. And then you're going to lack/lose the supporters you'll need when things really get bad. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Things are really bad already on Android. Most bootloaders are locked, Google prevents you to use the very few unlocked ones through the (legally questionable) Play Integrity. AOSP is basically dead (it doesn't even include a functional keyboard nor a functional call manager nowadays, can it still be called a phone?) and now they are further locking direct installs | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Things are really bad already on Android. Most bootloaders are locked, Google prevents you to use the very few unlocked ones through the (legally questionable) Play Integrity. AOSP is basically dead This feels like complaining about the color of the bikeshed, me saying you should save your complaints for when things get really bad, and you replying "things are really bad already, there is a rotten carcass in there and the roof leaks." Okay, so let's keep complaining about the color then. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | What would be "really bad" for you? Non-google Android is dead outside of China and you can't realistically distribute software either without a Google stamp. I don't see much difference between Android and iOS in terms of openness nowadays personally. | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What would be "really bad" for you? "Block[ing] every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out" ...would be "really bad" in my view. Which is probably exactly why they worded it that way, despite knowing fully well they are (rather blatantly) lying. They literally explained how to avoid it themselves further down below, after you've already been angered. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "Block[ing] every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out" Personally for me, a fake convoluted opt-out is the same as no opt out so we're already there. Even Fortnite failed to distribute outside the Play Store, if they can't despite being famous, well you can't. | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Personally for me, a fake convoluted opt-out is the same as no opt out so we're already there. Convoluted, yes, but fake? Aren't you just repeating the same lie? That means it looks like it bypasses the verification but doesn't actually do so. What are you basing that off of? | | |
| ▲ | realusername 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm talking about it as an app distribution method from the perspective of a developer and an app distribution method you can only ask a few people on Github to perform definitely isn't a valid one to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | NDlurker 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm guessing you've never shown up to a foreign country without a phone. First thing I do after I get through customs is find the phone store. |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm guessing you've never shown up to a foreign country without a phone. First thing I do after I get through customs is find the phone store. Indeed I have not. In fact I haven't even heard of people doing this until your comment. And that's before unknown app developers coming into the picture. I assume you do this to avoid border phone searches? And you feel the (ostensibly) security-related mechanisms for the rest of the world to be centered around this use case? Meaning the rest of the world should pay the cost to their own security to cater to this flow? | | |
| ▲ | NDlurker 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I just print out all my stuff and go old school. Pick up a cheap android phone at the airport and go about my business. Not sure why this is uncommon. Maybe I'll switch it up next time and bring my phone loaded up with dick pics. Why shouldn't people be free to install their preferred software immediately after purchasing a phone? How does it help anyone other than Alphabet shareholders to restrict that? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It is not "fear-mongering". It is an objective analysis of factual truths. |
