Comment by geoffschmidt
3 months ago
But see also the next section ("empowering experienced users"):
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
3 months ago
But see also the next section ("empowering experienced users"):
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
Oh! I thought I had found the crucial piece finally after ~500 words, but there's indeed better news in the section after that! Thanks, I can go sleep with a more optimistic feeling now :)
Also this will kill any impetus that was growing on the Linux phone development side, for better or worse. We get to live in this ecosystem a while longer, let's see if people keep damocles' sword in mind and we might see more efforts towards cross-platform builds for example
Let's take the "W". This is pretty good news!
That's like accepting vaders 'altered' deal, and being grateful it hasn't been altered further.
If google wants a walled garden, let it wall off it's own devices, but what right does it have to command other manufactures to bow down as well? At this stage we've got the choice of dictato-potato phone prime, or misc flavour of peasant.
If you want walled garden, go use apple. The option is there. We don't need to bring that here.
2 replies →
I am not english native. Is "The W" a synonym for "A Win", described as a positive outcome after a contest? Is there more nuance or context than that?
4 replies →
This isn't a "W", but I am finding my own "W" from this by seeing others distrust Google, and remembering to continue supporting and looking for open alternatives to Google.
This is not a win. This is having independent distribution shut down and controlled.
We no longer own our devices.
We're in a worse state than we were in before. Google is becoming a dictator like Apple.
4 replies →
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
Sure, they'll keep building it forever — this is just a delay tactic.
That doesn't say that you can just build an APK and distribute it. I suspect this path _still_ requires you to create a developer console account and distribute binaries signed by it... just that that developer account doesn't have to have completed identity verification.
So you will now need a useless and needless account to build and run your own apps? It's like Microsoft forcing online login on pcs.
useless, needless and terminateable at Google's pleasure!
it's probably just gonna be under the Developer Options "secret" menu
Which is totally fine IMO, it was weird to me that they weren't going with this approach when they first announced it.
Macs blocked launching apps from unverified devs, but you can override in settings. I thought they could just do something along those lines.
That's not fine at all. A developer who doesn't want to (or can't) distribute through the Play Store will now need to teach their users how to enable developer mode and toggle a hidden setting. This raises the barrier a bit more than the current method of installing outside the Play Store.
It's not fine. Some apps particularly banking apps have developer mode detection and refuse to work if developer mode is enabled.
4 replies →
Let me guess, a warning box that requires me to give permission to the app to install from third-party sources? Is that not clear enough confirmation that I know what I'm doing? /s
So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?
Wow, this really pulls back the veil. This Vendor (google) is only looking out for numero uno.
> So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?
A simple yes/no alert box is not "[...] specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer". In fact, AFAIK we already have exactly that alert box.
No, what they want is something so complicated that no muggle could possibly enable it, either by accident or by being guided on the phone.
I imagine what they're going to do involves a time delay so a scammer cannot wait on the phone with a victim while they do it.
2 replies →
> So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?
The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.
It’s been fairly clear from the start that this wasn’t the end of sideloading, period. However that doesn’t get as many clicks and shares as writing a headline claiming that Google is taking away your rights.
> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.
No, until this post, Google had said that it wouldn't be possible to install an app from a developer who hadn't been blessed by Google completely on your device. That is unacceptable. This blog post contains a policy change from Google.
> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions
There may have been exaggerations in some cases but these hand wavy responses like "you can still do X but you just can't do Y and Z is now mandatory" or "you can always use Y" is how we got to this situation in the first place.
This is just the next evolution of SafetyNet & play integrity API. Remember how many said use alternatives. Not saying safetynet is bad but I don't believe their intentions were to stop at just that.
Sorry what? Their original plan absolutely was the end of sideloading on-device outside of Google's say so. That's what the angry social media narratives were that you seem upset about. Anyone being pedantic and pointing out that adb install is still an option therefore sideloading still exists can fuck off at this point.
I don't think this section is actually the same as the present state just with a new alert box.
I suspect they mean you have to create a android developer account and sign the binaries, this new policy just allows you to proceed without completing the identity verification on that account.
What are you talking about? This change for "experienced users" was only just announced and not part of any previous announcement. It has not been clear from the start at all.
Have you missed the plot entirely? This is absurd