Language
-
Plot twist: EU enacts Chat Control.
Plot twist: EU is literally wanting to require Google Play services and a Google approved OS to use social media
-
I understand the paper trail that this is creating.
But it does come across as Google gatekeeping.
For example, what if I want to build an app, and distribute it outside of app stores with zero involvement from Google? It appears that cannot be done because I'd need to identify with Google through the developer program.
What happens if Google doesn't like that I made a chat app that bypasses censorship in specific country, it gets removed from play store, so i publish it on my website. What if Google gets mad at this and flags my identification?
Suddenly no one can install my app that has nothing to do with Google.
To me, even if it seems like a benign change, I can see how it can be exploited by Google to push whatever agenda they want.
If Google disappeared the day after this is rolled out, would I still be able to add a valid identifier to my apk without Google's involvement?
I don't think it seems like a benign change at all, for those reasons.
Well, for most of them. It IS a concern that every single piece of bootable code on the platform is traceable to a specific person worldwide, for sure. The last one shouldn't be an issue. If Google disappeared you'd still be able to run unsigned code on Android, since on paper this will only apply to "Android certified" devices. Not being certified may remove Google services and the Play Store, but in your scenario those are gone anyway. And there isn't a ton of clarity about whether ID certification will be automatic. I presume it will be, but we won't know until we hear from devs in their early access program.
But apps being persecuted or censored by governments? Sure. That's a very real issue. And Google and Apple deciding what people can run in their devices single-handedly? That's entierly unacceptable.
-
I totally disagree. Not because I don't think like this person does but because I watched us all go from Napster days until now and I 100% anticipate that people who think like this person will be eventually snuffed out by the people advocating against AI. Why I supported AI so much was the idea that it would push for more laws that allowed developers to iterate off each others work. Seeing the push back from AI opponents and also that we live in a world of content creators using the internet to supplement their lifestyle is a recipe to kill any open source community. It is only a matter of time. It will be a death by 1000 paper cuts.
-
For legally free and open software that has to maintain UI consistency across Windows, MacOS, and the plethora of open desktop environments? Yes, yes it is.
No it’s not. There are other free and open software offerings that function cross platform and do it more cleanly.
-
I'm not willing to pay for it, are you? If no then its to much to ask.
No, it’s too much to demand but simply asking they keep the interface as clean looking as any other free cross platform open source project is not an outlandish request.
-
It should be as easy to do as enabling developer options on your android. Tap a certain thing several times in a row and it unlocks it, permanently.
But then you have the user problem. Convince the user to bypass a security function for you and it won’t stop you. It’s really easy to trick users.
-
Well there actually is a problem this can help solve. Malware.
Most of the malware on Android is already on the Play Store. I mean that both in a snarky and sarcastic fashion, but also literally.
This is unfortunately true. I’m not saying this is something that will stop all malware or that I even like the damn thing. But it does have some valid uses.
-
This is unfortunately true. I’m not saying this is something that will stop all malware or that I even like the damn thing. But it does have some valid uses.
wrote last edited by [email protected]But it does have some valid uses.
In principle I disagree. This is more of Google asserting control. Maybe it would be legitimate if the Play Store wasn’t an absolute mess, but I’d probably disagree even then.
As a user who paid for the hardware, you should expect to have full control of your device, including the option to install your own software from alternative sources, or even replace the OS. Google, Samsung, et al aren’t paying you for the device, it’s yours. The only reason I can see here is for more end user control and yet more personal data mining.
I only marginally excuse Apple and iOS because it was a walled garden up front and they’ve made no qualms about it, you know what you’re buying. They’ve also implemented at least some debate of user privacy and limiting data sharing.
Google released Android originally as a fairly open system and have been tightening the reins as they’ve achieved market dominance.
-
Sure, but imagine a world where you could run a JVM (just as an example please don't focus on that lol) on your phone (and yes I know Android is JVM-esque, but you aren't just running JVM code on there willy nilly due to the way it's designed). There is no longer an Android vs iOS in that case with respect to JVM and even desktop or laptop applications. Of course there would need to be work done on the development side to deal with screen size and all that fun stuff, but these are all solvable problems and things you already have to deal with. QT has very easy to use Python bindings if you want an easy entry to that so that's no big deal. I don't write a lot of GUI code so I don't know the landscape that well, but I've had success with PyQt6 and Kotlin + JavaFX.
Anyway that's all kinda besides the point. We know how to build VMs; we've done it plenty of times. There is nothing magic about JavaScript; it's just a VM. Are browsers incredibly complex and well designed programs? Yes, but they're not special and their role as the backbone of everything doesn't seem inevitable or wise to me.
The magic of JavaScript and browsers isn't anything technical. Fuck I hate the whole thing, that's why I'm a backend developer. It's how widely supported it all already is and how many web devs there are. That's why I reckon using that ecosystem for "native" applications across several platforms makes a whole lot of sense and especially it makes sense for a brand new operating system to support web apps as first class citizens in some format, even though don't have to be the only option.
I don’t write a lot of GUI code so I don’t know the landscape that well, but I’ve had success with PyQt6 and Kotlin + JavaFX.
I think the last time I wrote any GUI code was Rust and Iced. It was ugly as hell, but that's on me. Since I'm more of a Python dev nowadays (Odoo), I might give PyQt6 a try for shits and giggles some time. It'll also be ugly as hell. Funnily enough, I've used Kotlin plenty, but never for GUI.
-
But it does have some valid uses.
In principle I disagree. This is more of Google asserting control. Maybe it would be legitimate if the Play Store wasn’t an absolute mess, but I’d probably disagree even then.
As a user who paid for the hardware, you should expect to have full control of your device, including the option to install your own software from alternative sources, or even replace the OS. Google, Samsung, et al aren’t paying you for the device, it’s yours. The only reason I can see here is for more end user control and yet more personal data mining.
I only marginally excuse Apple and iOS because it was a walled garden up front and they’ve made no qualms about it, you know what you’re buying. They’ve also implemented at least some debate of user privacy and limiting data sharing.
Google released Android originally as a fairly open system and have been tightening the reins as they’ve achieved market dominance.
That’s absolutely a motivator for Google but simply leaving things open ended also means they can’t enforce anything at all.
Scammer: -releases scammer shady product-
Google: we don’t want you using our products to scam users. We are blocking this.
Scammer: fine, I’ll throw it on an alt store and create errors when it’s run on an unmodified device. I’ll just require users switch to scamROM.
Google: fine, we’ll let you in the play store.See? There’s no winning here.
-
Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything.
then why do you support this thing at all?
So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.
restrictions are the default, today and the past few years. but google here wants to make it not a default, but the only option anyone can have.
seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all.
y.. yes they do?? that's exactly what they are doing!
-
That’s absolutely a motivator for Google but simply leaving things open ended also means they can’t enforce anything at all.
Scammer: -releases scammer shady product-
Google: we don’t want you using our products to scam users. We are blocking this.
Scammer: fine, I’ll throw it on an alt store and create errors when it’s run on an unmodified device. I’ll just require users switch to scamROM.
Google: fine, we’ll let you in the play store.See? There’s no winning here.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, the answer there is if scammers release scammy software and it’s not on the Play Store, that’s it. They’ve done their part and my job is to not be a tool and be careful if I’m sideloading, use things like VirusTotal, or otherwise just not install software that’s not vetted or open source where I can review the code. Nothing forces a user to use “ScamROM” or whatever example.
I don’t want Google policing my activity on my device.
-
No it’s not. There are other free and open software offerings that function cross platform and do it more cleanly.
For a project as big and old and full of legacy code as LibreOffice, I think their interface is pretty great. And its way more customizable than MS Office. Its just not the absolute latest and greatest in styling.
And, if MS didn't make it so hard to maintain compatibility with their "open" file format, TDF might be able to put more resources into UX. As it is, they have to reverse engineer all the nonconforming BS that Microsoft puts in their OOXML implementation.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but would loading a forked version of android (like lineageOS or grapheneOS) get around this? I know graphene at least puts all Google services in its own container. Would that allow the rest of the system to run "side loaded" apps? Or is this unavoidable if you use any version based on android?
Larger issue at hand is the number of devices that are able to install / are currently supported by those projects.
Even something like unlocking a bootloader is a daunting task for an average someone who's even considering flashing a custom rom.
Considering regional variants of phones (looking at you Samsung) making this an even higher and more confusing task for the average someone.
The littering of tools for specific devices, requiring running on specific operating systems, the list goes on as far as hurdles to load a more open operating system on a phone.
-
No, it’s too much to demand but simply asking they keep the interface as clean looking as any other free cross platform open source project is not an outlandish request.
They update the ui in most of their patches, theyve made the ui incredibly customisable. They have the classic header or a ribbon header. Its open source software it can't afford a redesign every few years to keep up with Microsoft design trends. The team is like 8 people.
I might be wrong but i feel like the people complaining about the ui dont really even use it. After a week of using it you get used to it and it looks normal.
-
Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything.
then why do you support this thing at all?
So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.
restrictions are the default, today and the past few years. but google here wants to make it not a default, but the only option anyone can have.
seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all.
y.. yes they do?? that's exactly what they are doing!
wrote last edited by [email protected]then why do you support this thing at all?
I don't? I've said multiple times that I don't.
Can somebody tell me what's the minimum guaranteed attention span in people reading stuff online so I can crunch down any points that aren't a binary of "Down with this sort of thing/Up with this sort of thing" to not have people waste my time by knee-jerk assuming my stance without reading what I'm saying? Maybe we need AI summarization more than people say we do.
Also, this is me doing that for Google now. Best I can tell Google isn't stopping sideloading, they are stopping sideloading of unsigned apps in devices with Android security certifications.
The second caveat is irrelevant, in that uncertified devices presumably don't get Google services and the Play Store, so outside off-brand Android retro handhelds it doesn't matter. The first caveat is important, because on paper you can still install stuff from a website or F-Droid or the Samsung store or whatever but those developers will have to leave their info on record.
What you need to do
Complete these two steps:
Verify your identity: Provide information and documentation to confirm your identity as an individual or an organization.
Register your package names: Prove ownership of your apps and register them with your verified identity.This isn't the full app certification you need to publish on Play Store, as far as I can tell. In their words
Android developer verification is a new requirement designed to link real-world entities (individuals and organizations) with their Android applications.
This is very bad for a number of reasons. Just not the reasons people are reporting.
