> 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 6 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 6 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 an hour 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.