Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install apps now'". Android users are screwed - Louis Rossmann
-
This is an android 16 feature, scheduled for sept 2026 "prerelease" and 2027 rollout. I expect/hope some phones will have a setting to disable "the security". If not, there is great opportunty for high end hardware linux first phones, with good android emulation software.
I'll go to iphone if it's not able to be disabled. And I hate iphone.
-
Unfortunately a Fairphone is not a secure device.
From a practical standpoint it’s secure enough for me, and I value the fair sourcing of components and labor a lot more than the little I am losing on security.
-
We the people that want a finished product with distribution and a good eco system from day zero. It must be next gen hardware and be priced more than competitively.
It's good to want, and I say that as someone who would dance for joy if an open source phone became viable. If you think starting a new ecosystem and expecting it to be "good, next gen, priced competitively" is feasible via volunteer work anytime soon, I want whatever you're smoking
-
What even is the reason for this? All this is going to accomplish is less Android market share.
-
This 100%
I have used tracfone since 2012 and only bought phones from their store, sub $150. The budget phones today are so much better than the last 10 years.
I just can't wrap my head around sinking that much into a phone when you replace it every year and it cost as much as a decent budget computer, but worse.
People who upgrade every year sell their old one at >50% the price.
So they don't fork over €600, they only do €250 or so.
-
Removable batteries are coming back, as they become mandatory in the EU in 2027.
Or you can already get one with a Fairphone (which also has SD card slot).
As for the headphone jack, I'm afraid it won't come back. Bluetooth alternatives are far better these days (I got both, so I know from experience), and good adapters (like Apple one) are barely more than $10.So what if Bluetooth are "better"?
Still no reason to not have both.
-
Run the cable through your shirt. Problem solved.
New problem created. Now when you want to take your phone out of your pocket to take a picture of something or scan it for an NFT sale you can't do that easily because you have this wire running through your shirt connecting your phone to your headphones. Also, if it's winter, now your phone has to go in an inner pocket not an outer one so you can't easily access it anymore.
Or you can, I don't know, unplug the headphones for 2 seconds.
And start blasting whatever you're listening to to the whole world? Well, you could pause what you're listening to first. Don't you see how this is much less convenient than wireless headphones where you don't have to make all these compromises?
Redundant. Also, put your phone in your pocket and stop whinin'.
Ah, accept a less convenient alternative because of the limitations of the wires. Sure, sounds great.
My man, are you allergic to speakers? You're cooking in a kitchen.
You're cooking in a kitchen. There are loud fans, loud kettles. Why would you use a speaker that you have to turn way up to blast over all that noise? What's wrong with you. Use headphones, you're in a kitchen!
Skill issue. Run your wire underneath your jacket and you won't have this """problem""".
Now you have the other problems with your phone being inside an inner pocket and not easily accessible for doing things like taking pictures or doing NFT transactions. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Great arguments! ~/s~
Still no reason to not just have both options.
-
You don't have a problem with Google dictating what you can and cannot do on your own phone? Seriously?
What's the benefit of that?
I guess I was brought up believing that if you do nothing wrong, theres no point hiding your identity.
I'm fine knowing the person who wrote the code of the app that I am about to install has had courage to identify themselves.
-
As a user, you should be upset that a private company is controlling how you are allowed to use your device that you paid for with your money.
This would be like if Microsoft decided you could only run Microsoft-approved code on a computer you purchased, in some cases with a locked bootloader so you can't even change your OS.
Also, Google is (imho) already operating unethically when it comes to the app store (See Google v. Epic). I don't care about Fortnite, but Google really shouldn't be able to take a cut of random services just because it's running on Android.
Doesn't upset me, why? Because it's not about controlling what app I install, but who wrote the app I might install. If my understanding is not correct of this change , I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong.
-
It's good to want, and I say that as someone who would dance for joy if an open source phone became viable. If you think starting a new ecosystem and expecting it to be "good, next gen, priced competitively" is feasible via volunteer work anytime soon, I want whatever you're smoking
It was a sarcasm.
-
I just hope that the Graphene devs continue to support the last supported versions of Android that allow installing apks.
I couldn't be happier with my P7 that has been running Graphene since day one. Zero Google. Zero problems
-
Run the cable through your shirt. Problem solved.
New problem created. Now when you want to take your phone out of your pocket to take a picture of something or scan it for an NFT sale you can't do that easily because you have this wire running through your shirt connecting your phone to your headphones. Also, if it's winter, now your phone has to go in an inner pocket not an outer one so you can't easily access it anymore.
Or you can, I don't know, unplug the headphones for 2 seconds.
And start blasting whatever you're listening to to the whole world? Well, you could pause what you're listening to first. Don't you see how this is much less convenient than wireless headphones where you don't have to make all these compromises?
Redundant. Also, put your phone in your pocket and stop whinin'.
Ah, accept a less convenient alternative because of the limitations of the wires. Sure, sounds great.
My man, are you allergic to speakers? You're cooking in a kitchen.
You're cooking in a kitchen. There are loud fans, loud kettles. Why would you use a speaker that you have to turn way up to blast over all that noise? What's wrong with you. Use headphones, you're in a kitchen!
Skill issue. Run your wire underneath your jacket and you won't have this """problem""".
Now you have the other problems with your phone being inside an inner pocket and not easily accessible for doing things like taking pictures or doing NFT transactions. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
You're like one of those people from infomercials who is unrealistically bad at simple low-skill activities
-
Christ. Some cheap phone for calls, SMS and banking. Some other device for literally everything else, perhaps I can get it with a headphone jack again.
-
You're like one of those people from infomercials who is unrealistically bad at simple low-skill activities
And you're like that farmer with his ass, glaring at all the newfangled technology, convinced it must be useless because you can't understand it.
-
Great arguments! ~/s~
Still no reason to not just have both options.
Well, the reason not to have both options if you're a phone manufacturer is that pesky port. Every port is a headache for them. There structural weak points, they're places that can get dust and dirt in them, etc. As a user, I want as many options as possible, but if I can get a phone that's $100 cheaper because it doesn't have a headphone port, I'll definitely choose that option.
-
And you're like that farmer with his ass, glaring at all the newfangled technology, convinced it must be useless because you can't understand it.
Lol nah you're just butthurt, get over it
-
I don't see how the DMA would cause this other than Google preemptively setting themselves up for malicious compliance. The whole point of the DMA seems to be to give users choice not take it away.
wrote last edited by [email protected]DMA is only partly for choice.Sorry, different act, but same group (EU). But the rest pretty much stands the same, the EU won't see it as malicious compliance, but as a great design choice.This is also huge part of it about being able to “prevent illegal” content.
“easier reporting of illegal content”
“less exposure to illegal content”
“level-playing field against providers of illegal content”This will help give paper trails for everything, and that allows for easy reporting which is the bigger part of the DMA.
-
Lol nah you're just butthurt, get over it
You sure wish those kids would get off your lawn.
-
From what I hear you can either 1. Register with Xiaomi and try to unlock it once a month. 2. Slip a service center worker with special access like 100RMB or buy a pre-unlocked one on taobao. 3. Ask said worker to downgrade firmware, then, before they relock it, snatch phone and run out of the store.
- Ask said worker to downgrade firmware, then, before they relock it, snatch phone and run out of the store.
Lmfao I just saw that video on reddit, it was so bizarre
-
What even is the reason for this? All this is going to accomplish is less Android market share.
Because of people installing malware.
Its only recently that most Android phone owners even used the internet features, now you need apps just to park your car.
There's nothing stopping someone from having you install malware from a pirate QR code someone puts over the proper sticker.
