Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install apps now'". Android users are screwed - Louis Rossmann
-
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. -
When it comes to the current final frontier, Linux phones, what brands/models would be the best option? Or are you all really recommending iPhones?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can't sideload in Linux.
"All" you need to do is reflash your phone and reinstall Android/Chromium (soon to be renamed Android).
Since you are not a certified supplier, the checking is not activated.On Chromebooks the setting will be on, since they are used in schools, but since it has a terminal you can remove the block, it won't be simple, probably terminal commands and changing configuration files, but it won't be impossible.
-
You also need every company to develop for a third mobile platform, where two different ones are already a big ask.
Easy solution would be to run existing apps on Linux, probably would be Android.
Another solution would we move to PWAs to have apps in the browser.
Both these things already happened on desktop Linux with Windows games using Proton and most proprietary desktop apps switching to Electron.
Honest question - why not fork android which already has all of the infrastructure needed for things like 5G handling, power management, and a widely supported ecosystem of components and vendors?
I would try a Linux phone, absolutely, but why not just Android instead?
The issue is current and future vendors for current and future Android phones are largely tainted and lockstep with Google.
But wouldn't developing off yesteryear Android still be leap years ahead of just reinventing the wheel around Linux? I kinda thought Android was Linux for our devices.
I'm mostly saying this just because I'm jealous to bring all of my APK's with me into that future.
I don't want to give up my reddit app and my current trio of browsers.
-
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.wrote last edited by [email protected]My guess is that it's because people are using apps to get around Google's revenue generating mechanisms, like apps to get YouTube without ads.
-
Apple now allows sideloading of apps and Google is trying to get rid of sideloading.
What... the Fuck?
Don't call it sideloading. Did you watch the video?
-
It was a sarcasm.
You forgot your /s
Expecting sarcasm to be understood in text is dumb. Too many dipshits exist to assume people arnt serious
-
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
It's wonderful isn't it?
-
I'll go to iphone if it's not able to be disabled. And I hate iphone.
Doesn't iPhone already have pretty much the exact restrictions that are coming to Android?
-
Does this work with any app or just second party ones? Can you re-enable it?
Yes it modifies the phone not the app and you can re-enable it anytime with 1 instead of -1
-
I know why you included both, but saying "1 adb command" and then posting two is funny to me.
One gets the current value to verify it and another actually sets a new value. It's the way these commands are usually shared.
-
Doesn't iPhone already have pretty much the exact restrictions that are coming to Android?
I don't have an iPhone to test, but google is showing mixed results so I can't confirm.
However, Ive been on android for about 20 years, never owned an iPhone, always android. I'd ditch it just for blocking it as a point.
-
At this point, I just need a community device. And I’ll gladly pay monthly for an OS that has the basics with a web browser and full privacy.
If Reddit Old would play nice with said device, and doesn't have a native app, I probably will settle on that when my ReVanced 3rd-party-Boost finally dies. (I also use the same developer's Boost for Lemmy app).
I already use Amazon in one browser instead of its app, and Facebook in a whole separate browser on my device, even.
But there are apps on in daily, like my brokerage account and my budget/financial app (Monarch Money is worth the subscription, for me).
I would absolutely pay for access to
-
This is the risk of "trusted computing" architectures. Who is governing the "trusted" part of that.
These cryptographic signatures are not as much of a death knell for Android as some would have you believe. The trick is to get a common code signing cert into your device, that is then used to sign any third party APK you want to run. You can avoid the Google tax this way. I assume that's how most sideloading sites and apps are going to handle this.
The question is, how do you add that certificate? Is it easy and straight forward (with plenty of scary warnings), as a user? Or is it going to be a developer options deal? Or will I need root to add the cert?
I'm not sure what that answer is right now.
I just want to finish this post with a few words about trusted computing models. Plainly: Apple has been doing this for years ... That's why you download basically everything from an app store with Apple. Whether on your Mac OS device, your iPhone, iPad or whatever iDevice.... Whether the devs need to sign it, or the app gets signed when it lands on the store, there's a signature to ensure that the app hasn't been tampered with and that Apple has given the app it's security blessings, that it is safe to run. Microsoft and Google have both been climbing towards the same forever. Apple embedded their root of trust in their own proprietary TPM which has been included with every Mac, and iDevice for a long ass time. Google also has a TPM, the Titan security module, I believe that was introduced around pixel 3? Or 4?... Microsoft made huge waves requiring it for Windows 11, and we all know what that discussion looks like. Apple requires a TPM (which they supply, so nobody noticed), Google has been adding a TPM and TPM functionality to their phones for years, and now Windows is the same. None of this is a bad thing. Trusted computing can eliminate much of the need for antivirus software, among other things. I digress. We've been going this way for a long time. Google is just more or less, doing what Apple has already done, and what Microsoft will very likely do very soon, making it a requirement. Battlefield 6 I think, was one of the first to require trusted computing on Windows and it will, for damned sure, not be the last that does. The only real hurdle here is managing what is trusted. So far, each vendor has kept the keys to their own kingdoms, but this is contrary to computing concepts. Like the Internet, it should be able to be done without needing trust from a specific provider. That's how SSL works, that's how the Internet works, that's how trusted computing should work. The only thing that should be secret is the private signing keys. What Google, Apple, and Microsoft should be doing, is issuing intermediary keys that can sign code signing certs. So trusted institutions that create apps, like... Idk, valve as an example, can create a signature key for steam and sign Steam with it, so the trust goes from MS root to intermediary key for valve, to steam code signing key, and suddenly you have an app that's trusted. Valve can then use their key to sign software on their store that may not have a coffee signing key of it's own. This is just one example based on Windows. And above all of this, the user should be able to import a trusted code signing cert, or an intermediary cert signing cert, to their service as trusted.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Thanks for sharing all of that. I got to think a little bit about stuff that normally I would take for granted.
